Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BP REFINERY (KWINANA) BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE SERVICE

Cheadle

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that some would-be subscribers in the Cheadle constituency will have been waiting five to six years before they obtain service under present plans; and whether he will take steps to give better service in this area.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Reginald Bevins): I am sorry about the delays in providing telephones in some parts of the Cheadle constituency. The telephone manager is making a special effort to speed up the installation programme in these areas and none of our intending subscribers will have to wait as long as my hon. Friend suggests.

Mr. Shepherd: Is my right hon. Friend sure that no would-be subscriber in the Cheadle constituency will wait as much as five years?

Mr. Bevins: Yes, I am quite sure.

Petersfield Exchange

Miss Quennell: asked the Postmaster-General if a decision has yet been taken in regard to the projected closure of the Petersfield Telephone Exchange.

Mr. Bevins: I intend to have a new automatic exchange with S.T.D. in actual operation at Petersfield towards the end of 1965. The present manual exchange

will then be closed and operator services will be provided from Portsmouth.

Miss Quennell: Will provision be made to find jobs elsewhere for those who are currently employed at the Petersfield Telephone Exchange?

Mr. Bevins: Yes, certainly. Established members of the staff still in our employment at the time of conversion will be offered alternative employment. We shall do all we can to cope with the situation of temporaries as well.

Demand and Supply

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Postmaster-General what is the estimated net increase in telephone demand over the next five years, and the projected net expansion of the service.

Mr. Bevins: The rate at which the telephone service will develop during the next five years will depend on a number of factors. The best estimate I can make at present is that telephone demand will total nearly three million, supply will be of about the same order, and the net expansion of the service after allowing for cessations will be about one and a half million.

Mr. Shepherd: As there is so much lag in the economy at present, and as there appears to be some room for expansion, should not we be devoting more of our resources to providing increased telephone services?

Mr. Bevins: That is what we are doing. I am seeking to secure a net growth of about 5 per cent. in the telephone service over the next five years. I am sure that we shall achieve that.

Scottish Telephone Directories (Printing)

Mr. Willis: asked the Postmaster-General where the Edinburgh telephone directory is printed.

Mr. Ross: asked the Postmaster-General what arrangements he makes for accepting tenders for the printing of the south-west Scotland telephone directory.

Mr. Milian: asked the Postmaster-General where the Glasgow telephone directory is printed.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Ray Mawby): The printing of all telephone directories is handled on our behalf by Her Majesty's Stationery Office. I understand from my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary that most of this work is done at their works at Harrow. The Edinburgh and Glasgow directories are primed there. Some of the smaller directories, including the local Dumfries and Galloway directory covering south-west Scotland, are printed under contract by private firms. The contracts are placed by Her Majesty's Stationery Office by competitive tender and that for the Dumfries and Galloway directory is held by John McQueen Ltd. of Galashiels.

Mr. Willis: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that whilst we are quite happy that it should be done by the Stationery Office, some of this work could be done in Scotland? The Stationery Office has just taken over a printing works in Scotland. Does not the hon. Gentleman consider that this is the type of work which could be given to areas in which there is a high level of unemployment?

Mr. Mawby: I shall have to consult my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, but I understand that he has plans for printing some directories in Edinburgh.

Mr. Ross: Can the hon. Gentleman find out whether the Stationery Office gives special consideration to the employment needs of an area? Cannot the Department properly use the recently nationalised printing firm in Edinburgh?

Mr. Mawby: I will certainly take that into account and discuss it with my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary.

Mr. Milian: Can we take it that the Post Office does not mind where the telephone directories are printed provided that it gets a competitive price for them and that, therefore, the Post Office would be quite happy, if the Stationery Office so decided, to have the directories printed in Scotland?

Mr. Mawby: All that we at the Post Office want are efficiently produced directories. That is our main consideration. As I have already said, this is a matter for my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary. Obviously, the directories can be

produced more economically in one main plant, but I will draw to my hon. Friend's attention the point that the hon. Member has made.

Captain Orr: Can my hon. Friend say where Northern Ireland telephone directories are printed?

Mr. Mawby: Not without notice.

Severe Weather (Damage)

Mr. Wainwright: asked the Postmaster-General if he will make a statement on the amount of damage to telephone installations and equipment caused by the very severe weather.

Mr. Bevins: Although the hard winter has caused extensive damage to telephone plant in many parts of the country, and blocked roads have often delayed and hampered repair work, the damage has been much less than might have been feared.
I should like to reiterate my appreciation to the staff who have striven so hard to keep the service going in difficult circumstances.

Mr. Wainwright: May I also give to the employees, both men and women, in these services the greatest credit for the way in which they carried out their duties during the recent arctic weather? Will the Postmaster-General make certain that the capital projects of his Department are not hindered or prevented even if the costs are greater than he expects?

Mr. Bevins: I am grateful for what the hon. Member said at the start of his supplementary question. In reply to his question, the answer is "Yes".

Charges

Mr. J. Hynd: asked the Postmaster-General whether he will announce an early reduction in telephone charges.

Mr. Bevins: No, Sir.

Mr. Hynd: In view of the fact that last year the Department issued a leaflet called Value for Money, asserting that telephone subscribers were getting their service at cost price, and as the telephone service has made a profit of £14 million this year, is it not time that the Postmaster-General withdrew that leaflet or reduced the charges?

Mr. Bevins: I have forgotten the pamphlet to which the hon. Member refers. There are, however, two factors which make reductions impracticable at present. One is the need for much higher Post Office capital investment, and the other is the fact that Post Office surpluses are much less buoyant than they were.

Factories, Rugeley

Mr. Snow: asked the Postmaster-General what notice was given to the companies establishing factories at Rugeley under overspill plan arrangements, that they would not be included within the Birmingham cheap telephone call area.

Mr. Bevins: None, Sir. There has been no recent change in the charge for calls between Rugeley and. Birmingham.

Mr. Snow: Will the right hon. Gentleman direct his attention to the apparent lack of consultation between his Department and the overspill "decanting" authorities of the Government-sponsored overspill plan, since these firms are now at a disadvantage as regards their telephone calls, are threatened with increased charges and, in any event, having been forced to move, have found great difficulty in getting lines at all?

Mr. Bevins: As the hon. Gentleman knows better than I do, Rugeley is about 20 miles from Birmingham and calls between the two places have always been charged at the rate of 1s. for three minutes during the day. The question of giving notice to a firm moving out about telephone charges is hardly a matter for me, but I am willing to discuss this with my right hon. Friends the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Housing and Local Government. Meanwhile, we hope to have S.T.D. at Rugeley within two years, and that should help generally.

Mr. Snow: If that is so, then it will be contrary to everyone else's experience. I defy the right hon. Gentleman to say that S.T.D. has resulted in reduced telephone bills for most people.

Mr. Bevins: I have no doubt that it has had the effect of reducing charges on telephone bills for business firms throughout the country.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Will my right hon. Friend say how he proposes to "decant" overspill?

Mr. Bevins: I think that that was the question put by the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow).

Shared Lines (Doctors and Midwives)

Mr. Boardman: asked the Postmaster-General whether doctors and midwives are exempted from the system of sharing telephone lines.

Mr. Bevins: Since 1948 doctors have been under an obligation to share their telephone lines to their private houses if they do not practise there. They are not required to share the telephone lines at their surgeries or in cases where the surgery and residence are on the same premises and served by the same line. Telephones to the homes of midwives are usually provided at the residence rate and are subject to the sharing requirement. I should, however, wish to make it clear that doctors and midwives are asked to share their telephone service only where there is no other means of providing service for a new applicant.

Mr. Boardman: Will the right hon. Gentleman look into this again, because the present position is at variance with that Answer? Will he bear in mind that this is not a matter of seeking a privilege for these professional people but is a necessary safeguard to the privacy of their patients?

Mr. Bevins: I appreciate that point of view. This is a difficult matter, especially as it affects midwives rather than doctors. I should be perfectly willing to discuss it with the hon. Gentleman and to look at it again.

Mr. Jeger: Is there a standard list of people exempted from the necessity of having to share their telephone lines? If there is, would the right hon. Gentleman publish it in HANSARD so that we could deal with local inquiries and complaints on this subject?

Mr. Bevins: I will certainly consider that suggestion.

Mr. Lawson: On a point of order. We have reached only Question No. 31. Would it not be in order subsequently to have the Prime Minister's Questions put back to at least Question No. 40 before we are interrupted?

Mr. Speaker: Do not let us argue those things now. We only lose time.

Coventry

Mr. Hocking: asked the Postmaster-General how many would-be subscribers are on the waiting list for telephones in the Coventry area; and how many have been on the waiting list for more than six months.

Mr. Bevins: At the beginning of the year there were 130 people on the waiting list for telephones in the Coventry area; 43 had been waiting more than six months. In addition there were 512 applications for telephones under inquiry or being met.

Mr. Hocking: Can my right hon. Friend say when it is likely that the waiting list in the Coventry area will be reduced? It has been at this tremendously high figure for some considerable time.

Mr. Bevins: In fact the telephone waiting list was 240 in June last year and at the end of last year it had fallen to 130, and is still falling.

Accounts

Sir H. Harrison: asked the Postmaster-General how much money his Department is saving by rendering accounts to telephone users four times a year instead of twice yearly.

Mr. Bevins: When quarterly accounting is in full operation next year, I estimate that the change will save about £l½ million a year in interest charges; but this will be approximately offset by the extra cost of sending four annual bills instead of two.

Sir H. Harrison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it will be a great inconvenience to many subscribers to have to pay four times a year by cheque? If he is not making any saving, cannot he give subscribers the choice of paying either half-yearly or quarterly?

Mr. Bevins: We came to the decision to go over to quarterly instead of half-yearly accountancy—after making a great deal of public inquiry—on the ground that it would be much more popular with the public.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Mail, Weston-super-Mare

Mr. Webster: asked the Postmaster-General what steps he proposes to take to improve the transport of mail to and from Weston-super-Mare.

Mr. Mawby: My hon. Friend has been good enough to give me details of complaints of delay made by firms in Weston-super-Mare. Our investigations so far do not suggest that the delays, which I regret, are due to inadequacy of the transport facilities to and from Weston-super-Mare. I am continuing my inquiries and shall be writing to my hon. Friend shortly.

Mr. Webster: Will my hon. Friend accept my congratulations on his appointment and my thanks for the researches into this problem which he and his predecessor have undertaken for some time, but will he accept, also, my concern that it seems impossible to locate where the hold-ups are? They are very persistent and, in some cases, quite a long delay is involved.

Mr. Mawby: I am happy to accept the first two points which my hon. Friend makes in his supplementary question. I agree that there are problems here. We hope that our investigations will bring the solution to light.

Post Office Advisory Committees

Miss Quennell: asked the Postmaster-General how many Post Office advisory committees exist; and what is their function.

Mr. Mawby: There are 196 local Post Office advisory committees. Primarily, their function is to provide a channel for a two-way exchange of views and information on Post Office policies and services. This is effectively done and my right hon. Friend much appreciates the spirit of public service shown by those who serve on these committees.

Miss Quennell: Since there seems to be a large number of people rendering the country useful service on these bodies, would it be possible to give greater publicity to them and give the country information about them and their work?

Mr. Mawby: A good deal of publicity is given to the advisory committees. I will look at any ways we can find to give more publicity to the very valuable service which they can perform.

Mr. H. Hynd: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the one in my constituency seems to meet once between Coronations? Can he do anything to ensure that advisory committees meet at least once a year?

Mr. Mawby: I do not mow about the particular committee of which the hon. Gentleman speaks. As I understand it, an advisory committee meets, normally, far more often than that. I will look into the case he mentions.

Mr. W. R. Williams: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House on how many occasions the Post Office Advisory Council itself has met during the last twelve months?

Mr. Mawby: I cannot answer that without notice, but I will look into it.

Crown Office, Shotts

Miss Herbison: asked the Postmaster-General when work will begin on the erection of the Crown Post Office at Shotts

Mr. Mawby: I regret that it is not yet possible to give a starting date for the building of this office, because of the quantity of more urgent building work already programmed.

Miss Herbison: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that there is very high unemployment in this area and that even the provision of a few jobs in the building of such a post office would be a help and would be welcomed? Does the Postmaster-General take into account the help which this would be in lowering unemployment as some other Ministers do when they are considering what projects should go ahead?

Mr. Mawby: Naturally, that point is taken into account, but we must also take into account the fact that the help that it would give in a high unemployment area is very marginal indeed. However, in this case, I will certainly take particular note of the point which the hon. Lady has made.

Miss Herbison: Even though the unemployment may be marginal, is not the

hon. Gentleman aware that employment for two or three or ten unemployed men would be of very great help to those who get the work in an area where most unemployed are long-term unemployed?

Mr. Mawby: We are currently examining how we can in our minor works programme pay particular attention to areas in which such projects arise, and I hope that from this we shall be able to make a little progress.

Large Towns and Cities (Deliveries)

Mr. D. Smith: asked the Postmaster-General (1) what his estimate is of the proportion of the population in the Greater London area who do not receive their main postal delivery before 8.30 a.m.;
(2) if he will ensure that every effort is made in normal weather conditions to complete the main postal delivery in large towns and cities by 9 a.m.

Mr. Mawby: At a very rough estimate, about one-third of the population in the Greater London area do not receive their main postal delivery before 8.30 a.m. To ensure completion of the first delivery by 9 a.m. in all large towns and cities would involve heavy expenditure which my right hon. Friend does not feel would be justified.

Mr. Smith: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the vast majority of the working population leaves home before 8.30 in the morning and therefore people cannot possibly deal with their mail until the evening? Will he confirm that before the war there was a postal delivery before 8 a.m.? Is it not time that something was done to bring things up to date?

Mr. Mawby: The whole object of the exercise is to try to make certain that mail is delivered at the most convenient time to the customer, but obviously we have to take into account the arrangements which we must make for postmen, the movement of mails and the fact that one cannot deliver earlier without arranging that mails can be sorted earlier, which would involve a good deal of additional expenditure. We therefore believe that our aim, which, in the main, is kept, is fair and maintains a reasonable balance between the staff of the Post Office, facilities and the customer.

Day Release Classes

Mr. Boyden: asked the Postmaster-General what recent steps he has taken to ensure that the percentage of juveniles aged 15 to 18 years attending day release classes in his Department now approaches more closely to the percentage obtaining in the other civil Departments.

Mr. Mawby: The percentage of attendance at the November, 1962, review was 68 per cent., an increase of 3 per cent. over 1961. We keep this matter under regular review and I am satisfied that every possible encouragement is given to staff to attend day release classes.

Mr. Boyden: There must be some difficulties here. What are they? Are the difficulties with the middle management grades who are unenthusiastic about this? Why cannot the Post Office get the percentage up to, say, 80 per cent., as some other Departments do?

Mr. Mawby: Naturally, we are doing everything we can to get all our staff on this basis. Of course, attendance at vocational classes is already compulsory for engineering youths, but I am not satisfied that it would be justifiable in present conditions to extend compulsory attendance to the non-vocational classes.

Sub-Office, Birmingham (Northfield)

Mr. Chapman: asked the Postmaster-General whether he will reconsider his decision not to allow a sub-post office in the Merritts Hill area of Northfield, Birmingham, in view of the hilly nature of the locality and of the petition from local residents.

Mr. Mawby: We have looked into this question again; but I am afraid that we should not be justified in incurring the expense of adding to the three sub-post offices already in this area.

Mr. Chapman: Have not the requirements been relaxed recently in the sense that sub-post offices can be nearer to each other than they used to be? In view of the great hardship for elderly and infirm people in this particularly hilly locality, cannot something be done about this matter? Would the hon. Gentleman be willing to allow one of the new shops in this area to have a licence for stamps, postal orders and so on and

see how we get on with that and then, perhaps, extend the facility later?

Mr. Mawby: We will certainly consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestion about the sale of stamps, However, we believe that the three existing sub-post offices perform a reasonable service, particularly when one takes into account the fact that there is a good bus service to and from the post office at Aliens Cross.

Property, Horseferry Road (Tenants)

Mr. M. Stewart: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that tenants of property owned by his Department in Horseferry Road, S.W.1, who have been given notice to quit, will have difficulty in finding other suitable accommodation; and what action he proposes to take.

Mr. Bevins: The proposed building in Horseferry Road is intended to replace the old sorting office in Howick Place which is now seriously inadequate for its purpose. I regret that it will be necessary for the tenants to move to make way for this development, but they have known for some time that the site is required in December for the building of a large new sorting office. I propose to terminate the business tenancies under the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954, and these tenants will qualify for the statutory compensation. My agents are in touch with the residential tenants and I will see that they are given all possible help.

Mr. Stewart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the compensation being offered to the residential tenants is not such as will enable them to find anywhere else to live? Is there not other land in their neighbourhood belonging to the Post Office where the new post office could be built?

Mr. Bevins: I understand that the answer to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is "No". I have made inquiries on that point. In regard to the first and, perhaps, more substantial point, I should like to make it clear that, despite Crown exemption, we shall treat the residential tenants as controlled tenants under the Rent Act. They will not be evicted unless they are


offered and refuse comparable accommodation. I am willing to consider any reasonable proposal to see that they do not suffer.

Letter and Parcel Post (North-West)

Mr. Vane: asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware of the deterioration in the letter post and parcel post between the North-West and other parts of England since the nineteen-thirties; and what action he is taking to improve the service.

Mr. Mawby: While we do not provide deliveries and collections on the same scale as in the nineteen-thirties, we still try to provide services which meet the needs of the country generally. My right hon. Friend agrees that the parcel post service is not as good as it should be at present and we are making strenuous efforts in co-operation with the railways to improve it. If my hon. Friend will let me know of any particular difficulty he may be having at present, I will gladly look into the matter.

Mr. Vane: While I thank my hon. Friend for that Answer as far as it goes, is he aware that in many villages in the north-west of England, in Cumberland and Westmorland, it is necessary to post a letter by about 2 p.m. on Fridays in order to ensure that it reaches London by first post the following Monday? That is no exaggeration, and applies to other services in proportion. I am sure that he does not consider that satisfactory. Therefore, will he treat this as an urgent matter and look into it again?

Mr. Mawby: We will certainly look into it again, but obviously there are problems, particularly during the weekend. We have certain habits throughout the country which have changed between the 1930s and now. I think that we must accept these conditions and try to work with them.

Mr. W. R. Williams: In case I do not get another opportunity, may I tell the Assistant Postmaster-General how pleased we are with the way in which he has faced his Ministerial ordeal in dealing with Questions for the first time?
Will the hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend whether he will be able to furnish any information to the House

when he is presenting his next Report on the working and prospects of the Post Office about the experiment taking place in East Anglia concerning the direct transmission of mails by the Post Office? Secondly, will he ask him whether he will be able to report on any discussions which he may have had with the British Transport Commission as to the probable adverse effects on the postal services of the contraction of railway services and the major reorganisation schemes now going on?

Mr. Vane: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. W. R. Williams) has started to make a speech on this Question, which refers specifically to the north-weslt of England, may I ask whether other hon. Members also may make general speeches on the subject?

Mr. Speaker: The Question refers to
the north-west and other parts of England
We cannot deal with Dr. Beeching's ideas now. That part, perhaps, can be cut out.

Mr. Williams: Further to that point of order. The question of delay in postal services, especially parcel post, is directly associated with the difficulties on the railways. Hence my supplementary question.

Mr. Mawby: The report will be issued within two or three weeks. I will certainly take into account the points that the hon. Member has made.

Sir H. Harrison: Does not my hon. Friend know that it is not only the North-West which suffers delays? It is obvious in many places at the weekend that posting after midday on Friday means that letters are not delivered before the third day.

Mr. Mawby: Yes. Coming from Devon, I know that this is a widespread problem. Naturally, it has its greatest impact in the rural areas at the weekend.

Special Stamp Issues

Sir J. Langford-Holt: asked the Postmaster-General which events have been marked by special issues of stamps in the last four years.

Mr. Mawby: In 1960, the tercentenary of the establishment of the General Letter


Office, and the first anniversary of the Conference of European Postal and Telecommunications Administrations were marked by special issues.
In 1961, the centenary of the Post Office Savings Bank, the meeting of the Conference of European Postal and Telecommunications Administrations held in this country, and the seventh Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference which was also held in this country were marked by special issues.
In 1962, the start of National Productivity Year was marked by a special issue.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: As the majority of those commemorative issues were for what might be described as postal matters only, will not my hon. Friend consider the basis on which these choices are made? Does he not consider that they should be made on matters of national importance and interest rather than purely parochial matters affecting the Post Office?

Mr. Mawby: We will certainly consider that. I draw my hon. Friend's attention, however, to the statement made by my right hon. Friend in December concerning the stamps which are to be issued this year, from which will be seen the wide nature of the issues, including the Freedom from Hunger Campaign, National Nature Week, the International Lifeboat Conference and the Red Cross Centenary Congress, to name but a few.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: Can we be assured by that reply that the policy has changed and that these issues will in future be made on a much wider basis?

Mr. Mawby: Yes. The policy has certainly become more liberal—with, of course, a small "1".

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is not the appearance of a Tory working man on the Front Bench speaking for the Post Office an occasion which should be marked by a special postage stamp?

New Office, Airdrie

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Postmaster-General where he proposes to site the new Post Office to be built in Airdrie; and if he will give the starting date of this new project.

Mr. Mawby: My right hon. Friend is sorry that this matter is not yet definitely settled, but we hope that it will be soon. I will write to the hon. Member as soon as I can.

Mr. Dempsey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the present premises are utterly inadequate, while 10 per cent. of the insured population is unemployed in the locality, among them building craftsmen and labourers? Will he do his utmost to expedite the start of this new building?

Mr. Mawby: Yes. I agree that the conditions in the present office are far from satisfactory. The main problem has been that of finding the right site. We hope that we have now found it, and negotiations are about to be opened. We hope that things will move pretty fast from now on.

Office Accommodation, High Holborn

Mr. Lipton: asked the Postmaster-General why he is negotiating to rent more office accommodation in High Holborn; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Bevins: I am negotiating a lease of 100–110, High Holborn. I have bad to increase my headquarters staff to cope with new work, for example in the field of satellite communications and broadcasting services, and I need more office space preferably close to the Departmental Headquarters.

Mr. Lipton: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that the Treasury two or three weeks ago appointed a sub-committee to consider the dispersal of Government offices from central London? Is it not, therefore, inexcusable that the right hon. Gentleman should take, almost next door to State House—on which the Government are spending £6,000 a week in rent—another huge office where civil servants can do work which can be done just as well outside central London? Do satellites have to be in central London?

Mr. Bevins: It is not inexcusable at all. We have been into the economic and financial aspects of the move with great care. This is a move of executive staffs who are required to be near the G.P.O. headquarters. In terms of transport savings and labour saving, I am convinced that it is the right move. The


Post Office has taken the initiative in the dispersal of staffs from London. We have two other moves in hand—one of 1,600 people of the Accountant-General's Department to Chesterfield and 2,000 people of the Savings Certificate Division to Durham.

Sir G. Nabarro: As severe restrictions are to be put on private firms as a result of the new measures of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, is my right hon. Friend aware that Government Departments themselves must set a high example and "decant" themselves out of London? Is he further aware that the Post Office would get into a great deal of trouble if it sought to make itself an exception to the rule?

Mr. Bevins: I wholly agree with my hon. Friend, and I have indicated that we hope to move between 3,000 and 4,000 Post Office staff, at present working in London, during the next few years. But the people at the new offices in High Holborn simply have to be close to headquarters because of the nature of their work.

Mr. Farey-Jones: Does my right hon. Friend's original reply indicate that the Post Office is actively engaged with a British communications satellite?

Mr. Bevins: The Post Office has been actively engaged on the examination of a satellite communications system for two years, and I am sure that it will continue to play a major part in the possibilities of such a system.

Sir W. Teeling: Is there any reason why, if he is moving people out of London, my right hon. Friend should not send them to areas such as Brighton and Hove, where they can get quickly by train and where there is considerable unemployment?

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot go all round the possible places on this Question.

Oral Answers to Questions — WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

Licences (Reminders)

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Postmaster-General if he will arrange, in future, for reminders about the renewal of television or sound wireless licences sent out by his Department to state the charge for these licences.

Mr. Bevins: The charges for television or sound wireless licences are, I think, pretty widely known and are stated on the first reminders addressed to the public. I do not think it is necessary to repeat the information subsequently.

Mr. Digby: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that it is not quite illogical to put it on the first reminder and not on the second and third reminders? Does he assume that all people keep the first reminder if they do not answer it? Surely, if the public are to be sent these printed notices, they should be self-explanatory in all cases and not merely in some.

Mr. Bevins: I should have thought that 99½ per cent. of the public knew very well that the fee for a television licence was £4 and for sound radio £1.

Films

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Postmaster-General if he will introduce legislation in order to limit the number of times television networks may show the same film.

Mr. Bevins: I sympathise with the intention of the hon. Gentleman's Question and I propose to draw the attention of the broadcasting organisations to the matter.

Mr. Dempsey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that reply will be warmly welcomed because, after all, the cost of television to viewers is considerable? When he draws the attention of the television authorities to this matter, will he also give them a list of some of the films from whose repeated showings we have suffered so often and include the famous one, "She Wore a Yellow Ribbon"? That film has been shown so often that the ribbon is now faded. Will he try to protect viewers from this type of thing?

Mr. Bevins: I am told that the I.T.A. repeats about 38 per cent. of feature films, while the B.B.C. does not keep exact statistical information on this; but I understand the percentage is about the same. However, the B.B.C. has shown "She Wore a Yellow Ribbon" four times, and "The African Queen" seems to crop up quite regularly. It is fair to add that many middle-aged people have a nostalgia for these things, although I am not one of them.

Mr. Woodburn: Will the right hon. Gentleman point out to these two bodies that even these films are better than some of the things from the intellectual beatniks on both channels?

M. Georges Bidault

Mr. Webster: asked the Postmaster-General if, under Section 15 (4) of the Licence and Agreement, he will require the British Broadcasting Corporation to refrain from sending broadcasts by illegal immigrants.

Sir W. Teeling: asked the Postmaster-General why he did not use his powers under Section 15 (4) of the Licence and Agreement to require the British Broadcasting Corporation to refrain from including the interview with Monsieur Bidault in the programme, "Panorama", on Monday, 4th March; and what machinery he possesses for noting advertisements on the air and in the Press about forthcoming programmes in regard to cosideration of the exercise of his powers under Section 15 (4).

Mr. Bevins: I am not prepared to issue a direction under Section 15 (4) to the B.B.C. I did not consider the use of my powers under this Section in the instance referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Sir W. Teeling). Such a direction would have infringed the independence of the B.B.C. in matters of programming. There is no machinery within the Post Office for the checking of forthcoming programmes.

Mr. Webster: If it is correct to say that M. Bidault is an illegal immigrant, is it not a fact that it was a grave error of judgment to allow him to broadcast in "Panorama"? Is it not also the case that if he was an illegal immigrant this broadcast was conniving at a breach of the law, and that this is not only a very serious legal matter but a grave error of judgment?

Mr. Bevins: Whether or not M. Bidault is an illegal immigrant is not a matter for me. The power which I have under Section 15 (4) of the Licence and Agreement is a reserve power and has always been so regarded by my predecessors and myself. Since the beginning of 1962 I have been asked to exercise this power to ban programmes presenting violence, to ban politically

biassed programmes, to ban broadcasts to schools on the Common Market, to ban satirical programmes—and others. I do not want to be a censor of the B.B.C. or of the I.T.A.

Sir W. Teeling: Why was it that the Foreign Office approached the B.B.C. and did not approach the Postmaster-General? Is my right hon. Friend quite certain that his public relations department is sufficiently in touch with other public relations departments in order to make them understand that he is responsible for anything that should be done with the B.B.C.?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The second part of that Question is out of order. The Postmaster-General cannot answer for the activities of the Foreign Office.

Mr. W. R. Williams: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on balance we on this side of the House approve his endorsement of the view he has accepted with regard to the independence of the B.B.C. in this matter? However, having regard to the importance of this subject, can he say whether the B.B.C. consulted him in the first place?

Mr. Bevins: As I think the House knows, the Government were aware of this intended broadcast. I think, therefore, it must be assumed that Members of the Government were aware of it.

Mr. Wade: Is it not better to err on the side of freedom rather than on the side of censorship?

Mr. Ellis Smith: Except on the working man.

Mr. Wade: While not approving the views or activities of M. Bidault, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, if at any time in the future General de Gaulle finds himself in this country under similar circumstances, he might not well be offered the same facility?

Mr. Speaker: Might that not be hypothetical in its entirety?

Mr. Warbey: Does the Postmaster-General consider it to be in the national interest that the B.B.C. should be allowed to contribute from public funds to a person and an organisation who have been engaged in indiscriminate murder, who are plotting the assassination of French political leaders and


the overthrow of the French Government by violence and the establishment of a Fascist military dictatorship in a friendly country?

Mr. Bevins: It is a matter of judgment, but for my part I always lean in the direction of allowing independence to the broadcasting authorities, and I think that that is right.

Mr. Webster: Is it not a grave error that the B.B.C. should have connived at this breach of the law?

Mr. Gordon Walker: While we agree with the general proposition that the B.B.C. should be left independent, may I probe what the right hon. Gentleman has said about the Government being aware that this programme was to be screened? Am I right in taking it that the B.B.C. consulted the Government and that the Government themselves are to some extent implicated, at any rate in the timing of the programme? This seems to be a quite different question from that of the independence of the B.B.C.

Mr. Bevins: I think it is already clear to the House that the Government were informed by B.B.C. of its intentions.

Local Sound Broadcasting

Mr. Loveys: asked the Postmaster-General when he will take action on paragraph 76 of Command Paper No. 1770, which deals with the need for public reaction to be tested before deciding whether to embark on local sound broadcasting.

Mr. Bevins: I would refer my hon. Friend to the Government's conclusion, recorded in the second White Paper on broadcasting, that local sound broadcasting should not command a high priority in the allocation of national resources. There has been very little public reaction on local sound broadcasting since the issue of the White Papers.

Mr. Loveys: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the only way to test public reaction would be to allow local sound broadcasting companies to operate for a trial period?

Mr. Bevins: That would be one way, but I am bound to say that since the

publication of the White Paper there has been precious little evidence of any public demand for these services.

MINISTER OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT(PRESS STATEMENTS)

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech on leasehold and rents made by the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs at his Press conference in Cardiff on Saturday, 23rd February, 1963, represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): My right hon. Friend did not make a speech on the occasion to which the hon. Member refers. He answered questions from the Press.

Mr. Thomas: Is the Prime Minister aware that he is singularly ill-informed and that the Minister made several comments concerning leasehold and high rents? Does he approve of the statement of the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs rejecting the proposal which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition had made the night before for a measure of leasehold enfranchisement, and does he approve his right hon. Friend's statement approving the high rents now being charged because of the 1957 Rent Act?

The Prime Minister: I understand that my right hon. Friend answered a number of questions and I am sure that in doing so he stated Government policy.

Mr. Thomas: Will the Prime Minister tell me whether he approves of the complete rejection of any measure of leasehold enfranchisement?

The Prime Minister: Whether that question was among the questions I am not fully informed, but I am quite sure that the statement made by my right hon. Friend was a statement of Government policy.

Mr. H. Wilson: Since the Prime Minister has now twice said that what the right hon. Gentleman said was Government policy on leasehold reform, would the Prime Minister tell us what Government policy is for ending the leasehold system?

The Prime Minister: I understand that the question of possible evictions was raised and that my right hon. Friend pointed out that, except where there were development possibilities, lessees were amply protected under the 1954 legislation.

Mr. Box: Would my right hon. Friend use any influence which he may have with the Leader of the Opposition and ask him to persuade the four Socialist-controlled councils in the immediate vicinity of Cardiff which have consistently refused to sell freeholds to sitting leasehold occupiers⤔[Interruption.]

The Prime Minister: I will do what I can through the usual channels.

Mr. Denis Howell: Is not the Prime Minister aware that when my Leasehold Bill was before the House recently it was a Cabinet decision not to do anything to help these people and not to deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Box) which was covered by my Bill?

The Prime Minister: That is rather wider than the original Question.

NUCLEAR WARFARE (LETTER)

Mr. Lubbock: asked the Prime Minister what reply be has sent to the letter addressed to him by Mr. Hugh Brock offering his assistance in the compilation of a simple scientifically accurate account of the probable effects of a thermonuclear attack on Great Britain.

The Prime Minister: I have declined Mr. Brock's offer.

Mr. Lubbock: If he has declined this offer from Mr. Brock, will the Prime Minister say whether he will make some other account available to the public in accordance with the undertaking given in the Statement on Defence—that the Government have always recognised the importance of informing the public about the effects of thermo-nuclear weapons?

The Prime Minister: I do not think there is any doubt in anybody's mind about what would be the terrible effect, in this or any other country, of nuclear war. The whole purpose of all national policies is surely to try to avert such a war.

Mr. Lubbock: Why do the Government publish a leaflet which says that bicarbonate of soda and aspirin are specifics against H-bomb attack?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Member is trying to denigrate the Civil Defence service, he is making a mistake, because, however terrible the situation might be, it is surely our duty to take whatever possible steps can be taken to mitigate it.

FOREIGN DECORATIONS

Sir J. Langford-Holt: asked the Prime Minister what decision has been taken with regard to the regulations governing the wearing by Her Majesty's subjects of decorations awarded to them by foreign States.

The Prime Minister: I do not propose to suggest to my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that he should recommend that any change should be made in the Regulations.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: May I first declare that I have no interest in the matter? Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there is a strong feeling that while it is understandable that permission to accept such honours may be withheld, having given permission it is illogical to say that they may not be worn?

The Prime Minister: Since my hon. Friend raised this I have looked into the question, and I find it to be rather more complex than I think he realises. I feel that any changes would be likely to give rise to more difficulties, and therefore I think that it would be better to stick to the present regulations.

Mr. Edelman: Has not the Prime Minister an interest in the matter? Is not he the bearer of the Tunisian Order of Chastity, Fourth Class? May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman intends to polish it up before the next General Election?

The Prime Minister: I regret to inform the House that although this Order was offered to me by the Bey of Tunis after the Battle of Tunis I was not permitted to accept it. Only generals and admirals were able to do so.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that there is no truth in the rumour that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to be awarded the Order of the Golden Fleece after the Budget?

Mr. Woodburn: Is the Prime Minister aware that if he is not "chased" now we hope he will be at the election?

HEALTH (CIGARETTE SMOKING)

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: asked the Prime Minister which Government Departments are concerned with the problem of the dangers to health, including cancer, caused by cigarette smoking, and with research into this subject and the provision of information and publicity about it.

The Prime Minister: Primarily the Health and Education Departments and, in regard to research, the Medical Research Council.

Mr. Noel-Baker: On research, is the Prime Minister aware that knowledge of smoking habits at the moment is almost exclusively available only from the tobacco trade? The Council for Children's Welfare is at the moment trying to beg money from the Gulbenkian Foundation to finance research into effective ways of explaining the hazards of cigarette smoking to young people because a penny in Government money is not forthcoming.
On publicity, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman why the Government's publicity services continue to be on a derisory scale using old-fashioned methods and making no use of television, radio, Press advertising, and other modern means of mass communication? Will the Prime Minister give urgent new instructions to all the Government Departments concerned to take effective action in this matter?

The Prime Minister: With regard to the first part of that supplementary question, a good deal of this research is being undertaken by the Medical Research Council. With regard to the second part, I understand that in addition to all the other methods in the schools and elsewhere, by means of posters, and so on, an official colour film has just been com-

pleted and copies will be available to schools and other bodies connected with the campaign.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Has a Cabinet decision been taken to ignore the recommendation by the Royal College of Physicians exactly a year ago that all cigarette advertising should be prohibited on television? If so, why?

The Prime Minister: I should like notice of that question.

Mr. Lipton: Having mentioned posters, is the Prime Minister aware that the poster advertising interests are in effect exercising a censorship over Government posters dealing with the connection between smoking and lung cancer? What is the right hon. Gentleman doing to stop this interference with the good work which the Ministry of Health is trying to do in this matter?

The Prime Minister: I understand that that question is now under discussion between Departments.

Mr. Driberg: Would the Government consider taking some time on commercial television to warn viewers against the cigarette commercials?

The Prime Minister: I shall consider that, but I cannot promise that it will be done.

SERVICE DEPARTMENTS (REORGANISATION)

Sir P. Agnew: asked the Prime Minister (1) if he intends to take the necessary steps for raising the status of the Minister of Defence to that of one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State, and to designate him as such;
(2) if he intends to take the necessary steps with regard to the Patent constituting the Commissioners for executing the Office of Lord High Admiral so as to provide for the government of the Royal Navy within the new defence framework.

The Prime Minister: I recognise that these and other important aspects of the reorganisation, the broad principles of which were announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence on 4th March, are of great interest to my hon. Friend—and, indeed, to the House and


the general public. I hope that when we have worked out all the details of this scheme later in the summer, it will be found to deal satisfactorily with all these issues.

Sir P. Agnew: In the meantime, can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he does not intend to leave Admiralty House, except, of course, to return to No. 10 Downing Street?

The Prime Minister: I hope to return to No. 10 as soon as it is ready.

Mr. Bellenger: The Prime Minister will be aware that there are considerable constitutional matters involved in the announcement of the Minister of Defence the other day and, therefore, the House will want full information, I should imagine, in the shape of a White Paper or otherwise before we can come to a decision.

The Prime Minister: The purpose was to raise discussions on general principles and later to put specific proposals to the House. A White Paper would probably he the most convenient method.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is Civil Defence to be placed under the Minister of Defence?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I cannot 1say that at the moment.

SPARE PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY (AID TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Prime Minister what negotiations he has now had with Governments of developing countries on additional aid from under-utilised resources in north-east England, Merseyside, south-west England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Dr. Bray: asked the Prime Minister what negotiations have now taken place with Governments of developing countries on additional aid from under-utilised resources in northeast England, Merseyside, and Scotland.

Mr. Millan: asked the Prime Minister what discussions he has now had with Governments of developing countries on additional aid from under-utilised resources in Scotland and northeast England.

The Prime Minister: Negotiations on additional aid from spare productive capacity are proceeding with a number of Governments. An agreement was signed yesterday with the Government of Ghana for a loan of £2,164,000 odd for the purchase of two cargo ships to be built on the North-East Coast. It would not be right for me to give details of other negotiations while they are still proceeding.

Mr. Dalyell: Can we be assured that the sum of £10 million mentioned in this connection on 18th December by the Deputy Prime Minister in answer to a Question will be completely provided?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman will understand, these negotiations are quite complicated, and very often of a technical character, but it is our intention to try to bring them to a successful conclusion.

Dr. Bray: Would not the Prime Minister agree that the unemployment situation and the state of sterling today point to the need for much more vigorous action to increase exports? Would he consider offering considerably larger loans to finance exports on condition that 10 per cent. to 20 per cent. is paid for immediately by the return of overseas holdings of sterling?

The Prime Minister: Action is being taken on a very wide field, and further action will be taken. These loans are by way of aid and are guaranteed by the guarantee procedure. Perhaps any further questions on this might be addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Millan: Even if the Prime Minister cannot give specific details of the negotiations, can he at least give an assurance that some of these negotiations are concerned with work which will benefit industry in Scotland?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. One has been announced and others are under discussion.

Dame Irene Ward: May I ask my right hon. Friend to accept my congratulations.—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]


Indeed, is my right hon. Friend aware that I always congratulate him when I think he has done well for the North-East Coast?

The Prime Minister: I am very grateful for that, and I shall look forward to a whole series of congratulations.

Sir C. Osborne: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear to the House and to the country that this additional aid to under-developed countries can only come out of our profits and not out of our losses and that we can only send exports to these countries if they are paid for?

The Prime Minister: Broadly speaking, they must be supported by a good balance of payments situation which comes from an excess of exports over imports, including invisible exports. These loans are made under Section 3 of the Export Guarantees Act.

KENYA (NEW CONSTITUTION)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. BOTMMLEY: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on his visit to Kenya.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Duncan Sandys): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will answer Question No. 74.
The primary purpose of my three weeks' visit to East Africa was to finalise the text of Kenya's new Constitution, so as to enable elections to be held and internal self-government to be introduced. Two out of these three weeks I spent in Nairobi, in almost continuous discussion with Kenya Ministers and with deputations representing regional, racial or sectional interests of various kinds.
I received several deputations from the European community. Among other matters, they spoke to me about the problem facing the aged and infirm, particularly those living in isolated areas. I fully understand and sympathise with their difficulties. I am obtaining further information about these cases from the Government of Kenya, and I hope to be able to make a statement shortly.
During an interval in the discussions in Nairobi, I paid short visits to Zanzibar, Tanganyika and Uganda.
Thanks to the energy of the Governor, Mr. Malcolm MacDonald, and of Kenya Ministers, much the greater part of Kenya's new and complex Constitution had already been settled before I arrived. However, there remained about 25 issues on which K.A.N.U and K.A.D.U. Ministers had not managed to agree, and which it fell to me to resolve. On one or two of these questions, the differences were eliminated in the course of our talks, and in a few other cases the area of disagreement was narrowed.
When it was recognised that further discussion would be unfruitful, Ministers of the two parties agreed to refer the points in dispute to me for arbitration and to accept my decisions. I was very glad of this, since it is of the utmost importance for the future stability of Kenya that the new Constitution should be based upon the willing consent of the two main African parties.
As was to be expected, the points of disagreement were mainly concerned with the balance of power between the central Government and the regional authorities, and with the varied tribal aspirations and fears which are inextricably connected with it. Unhappily, the whole of political life in Kenya today is permeated by intertribal rivalry and suspicion; and any Constitution which ignored this hard fact would, from the start, be doomed to failure.
In coming to my decisions on the points of disagreement, I was guided by three main principles. The first was to adhere faithfully to the basic constitutional framework agreed between all parties at the Lancaster House Conference last year. The second was to create governmental machinery which would be efficient and workable. The third was to provide a sufficient degree of regional autonomy to safeguard one tribal group from domination by another.
In addition to these internal issues, I also had to deal with two problems of an international character. The first concerned the 10-mile deep coastal strip, including Mombasa, which is part of the territory of the Sultan of Zanzibar, but which, under a Treaty of 1895, has been administered as a British Protectorate.


The Government of Zanzibar might quite well have maintained that Her Majesty's Government were not entitled under the Treaty to hand over control of the coastal strip to a self-governing African administration. However, when I discussed the matter with the Sultan and his Government, they at once made it clear that they warmly welcomed Kenya's constitutional progress and wished to raise no objections to the continued administration of the coastal strip as a part of Kenya, under the new Constitution.
It was agreed between us that, before Kenya became fully independent, there would, naturally, have to be talks between Her Majesty's Government and His Highness's Government regarding the new situation which would then arise.
I am publishing as a White Paper the text of a joint statement by the Chief Minister of Zanzibar and myself, and I wish to express my warm appreciation of the helpfulness and understanding shown by the Sultan and his Government over this matter.
The other international problem was the demand for the cession to Somalia of the Northern Frontier District of Kenya. The report of the recent Commission of Inquiry shows that the eastern part of this area is inhabited predominantly by Somalis and other kindred people who wish to be integrated with the Somali Republic. On the other hand, the report indicates that a majority of the inhabitants of the western part of this area are opposed with equal vehemence to secession. The impressions I received from my meetings with secessionist and anti-secessionist deputations from the Northern Frontier District fully confirm this conclusion.
I discussed the whole problem very frankly with Kenya Ministers. They felt strongly that, in the absence of a fully representative Government which could speak with authority for the people of Kenya, it would not be right, for the British Government on its own, to take an irrevocable step.
In any case, it seemed reasonable to ask the Kenya Somalis to give a fair trial to the new Constitution with the wide degree of local autonomy which it will confer. However, in order to emphasise their good will and in order to give to Kenya Somalis greater opportunity for the expression of their racial and religious identity, Kenya Ministers

agreed that consideration should be given to the formation of a separate region. They left the decision on this question to Her Majesty's Government.
As the House knows, we decided to create a seventh region, embracing the eastern part of the Northern Frontier District, as envisaged in the report of the Regional Boundaries Commission. We did not, of course, imagine that this would fully satisfy Somali aspirations, but, while not wishing to exclude future consideration of any methods of settling this problem, we did not think that at this juncture a more radical solution would be justified.
Even if we had wanted to do so, it was clear that in these circumstances a decision by the British Government to cede this territory without the consent of Kenya Ministers would have provoked violent reactions throughout the country, and would certainly have led both K.A.N.U. and K.A.D.U. to leave the Government.
As it was, both parties accepted as fair and reasonable my decisions on this and all the other points of disagreement. The way was thus clear to fix the dates for the elections for the Regional and National Assemblies. These will be staggered over a period of 10 days and will be completed on 26th May, after which the new Constitution will come into force and Kenya will have full internal self-government.

Mr. Bottomley: While recognising what has been accomplished by the Secretary of State, may I ask whether he is aware that if the Government of which he was a member had accepted the Report of the Parliamentary Mission in 1954— of which, incidentally, I am the only member left in the House—his task would have been easier, and he would have got a much better result? However, that is past. I want to pursue with the right hon. Gentleman some questions arising from his statement.
First, we know that in the case of Kitale there were some differences between the two major African parties. One wanted Kitale to go to the Western Province. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman can say something further to assure us that, apart from tribal difficulties, there will not be a development of party difficulties.
The second question concerns Somaliland. It would be most unfortunate if the Government allowed the situation to develop where possible differences concerning the Northern Province had to be settled between Kenya and Somaliland when Kenya became independent. That would place a very heavy burden on Kenya and Somaliland—both of whom are developing countries. I would have thought that the last thing we would want to do was to make it difficult for them to look after their internal affairs. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman might consider asking the African members of the United Nations to appoint a team of experts to look into the matter and make recommendations.
Thirdly, we welcome the fact that both the Kenya Government and the Zanzibar authorities have agreed that the coastal strip shall be a part of Kenya in future.
Lastly, can the right hon. Gentleman say anything more about the Central Land Board? Hon. Members on this side welcome decentralisation, but we would strongly deprecate the position of the Board being strengthened by other action. Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any further information on that point?

Mr. Sandys: May I say a word about the Somalia issue? The formation of the seventh region does not prejudge the final decision on the Northern Frontier District and does not exclude further consideration of other solutions. I should like to make that clear. Regarding the right hon. Gentleman's proposal about setting up an international inquiry into the facts of the situation in this area, I really do not think that we are short of information on this subject. We know the facts. But even after knowing them, the problem remains, and I do not believe that any further inquiry would greatly help us.
My difficulty regarding Kitale was that at the Lancaster House Conference a year ago everybody agreed that a Boundaries Commission should be set up and that all should accept its decisions whether they liked them or not. It was very difficult, therefore—impossible really—for me to reopen this question of boundaries unless there was agreement by the parties who were responsible for the joint decision at the Lancaster House Conference.
However, on the last day I was able to introduce a new provision into the Kenya Constitution which provides a simple and quick method of transferring territory from one region to another during the first six months after the Constitution comes into force; the idea being to rectify any mistakes which had become apparent, provided that the two regions concerned were agreed. Only their agreement by a simple majority will be needed. I am hopeful that the Kitale question will be dealt with in this way if, as we are told, both regions are in favour of this change.
I do not know exactly what points the right hon. Gentleman wishes me to answer about the Land Board. That is rather a wide question. But if there are any specific points he wishes to raise I shall be glad to elucidate them.

Sir H. Oakshott: Will my right hon. Friend allow me respectfully to congratulate him warmly on what must have been an extremely exacting mission, but one which may bear fruit in the future? May I ask this about the Land Board, as it has puzzled me a little? Was not the original idea that there should be a strong central board with an independent chairman which would inspire confidence in resolving tribal conflicts over land, settle purchases, resettlement, and so on, and will not this rather sudden change, the cancellation of General Bourne's appointment, and the reduction in the powers of the Board, damage confidence?

Mr. Sandys: Naturally, I gave a great deal of thought to this matter. The original plan for the Central Land Board was made on the assumption that an independent body could be entrusted with controversial decisions on the allocation of land as between tribes, and also with the administrative problems of actual cultivation after the land had been resettled. That was the decision which emerged from a unanimous view of the Lancaster House Conference.
But things do not always look quite the same on the ground as they do around the conference table in Lancaster House, and I think that on further reflection people came to the conclusion that the question of dealing with rival tribal claims for land was much better left to the regional authorities in whose area the


land lay and in whose area the tribes live. Administrative arrangements for the cultivation of the land could not be divorced from the overall responsibility of the Government for the formulation of an agricultural policy.
Confidence in the Land Board, in particular, is a matter for the Europeans, because they are primarily affected in this matter. I should like to point out that the Board will continue to be exclusively responsible for all those matters which are of direct concern to the European farming community, that is to say, selection of the land to be bought and the valuation, and the payment of the purchase price. Because of the restriction in the scope of the Board and the exclusion from its purview of tribal and other matters, it has now been possible to put on to the Board something which the European community always wanted, a representative of the European farming community to watch their interests.

Mr. Wade: What assistance will be given to the aged and infirm who wish to come to live in this country and what assistance will they receive when they have arrived here?

Mr. Sandys: As I told the House in my statement, I am getting further information about these cases and I hope to be able to make a statement very shortly.

Mr. Wall: I particularly congratulate my right hon. Friend on obtaining an agreed form of regional Constitution. May I ask what degree of financial autonomy the regions are to have? I recognise the difficulty over the Somali problem. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the decision is likely to create a certain amount of feeling throughout the whole of the Moslem world? Does not he think that there should be a rectification of the frontier in the context of the new East African Federation?

Mr. Sandys: I do not know about a rectification of the frontier in the context of the East African Federation. As my hon. Friend knows, the Federation does not yet exist, and is still a long way from existing. As I said in reply to a question by the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Bottomley), the decision to form the seventh region does not exclude further consideration of other solutions.
As for the financial side, the fiscal setup has been largely determined by a very able report by Professor Tress on the whole of this problem, which we have been able to follow pretty closely.

Mr. Brockway: May I ask whether the Minister is aware that many of us appreciate the difficult problems with which he has been dealing and that, broadly, we should like to congratulate him on the Constitution that he has gained? May I ask whether he will consider a suggestion regarding the very grave issue of the northern frontier and the claims of the Somalis? First, will he seek to expedite the conclusion of the East African Federation within which the problems of this area may be settled by incorporation in that wide Federation, and, secondly, will he encourage the heads of African States—because in the last resort this problem will be settled in Africa and not here—who are shortly to meet at Addis Ababa, to offer their arbitration on the problem of frontiers between the different African communities?

Mr. Sandys: I thank the hon. Member for his friendly remarks.
On the question of Somalia, I rather doubt whether a conference of the kind which is to be held at Addis Ababa would provide a suitable medium for arbitration, or whether either of the two parties would be very happy to accept it, but I know of the hon. Member's great interest in the whole of this problem.
On the question of federation, I think that it is well known that Her Majesty's Government want to see any steps taken which are feasible to strengthen the economy and stability of the whole of this area. We welcome the efforts which are being made by a number of elements in East Africa to pursue the idea of a closer association of one kind or another. So far as we are concerned, it will receive all our encouragement and support.

Mr. F. M. Bennett: May I ask two short questions? First, following the question of regional finance, we all agree that Professor Tress's settlement guarantees adequate revenue. What some of us are worried about is whether that revenue is secured to the region in the context of the suspicions existing at present in Kenya.
As to the Kitale problem, would the Secretary of State agree that his chief problem here is not so much frontier rectification between quarrelling tribes as the settling of agreed frontiers between the regions separate from the interference of third parties who had no interests in the matter except to try to stir up trouble?

Mr. Sandys: I do not want to stir up any trouble either. As far as fiscal arrangements are concerned, the regions are assured in some cases of the general product of certain taxes, and in other cases of a percentage of the total product of the taxes for the country as a whole. In addition, there are local authority taxes of which the regions can, if they think it necessary, assume a part.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: I regret that my duty is so difficult, but I think that we must get on.

Orders of the Day — TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.52 p.m.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Sir Keith Joseph): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The House will be aware that since the war there has been a considerable growth of offices in Central London. In fact, whereas before the war there were about 87 million square feet of office space in Central London of which 9½ million square feet were lost by war damage, the war damage loss has been much more than replaced in the years since the war. Of course, it was necessary to make good the loss by war damage because the offices that serve the commerce, insurance and banking of this country have in many cases to be in reach of, or in, London and they serve not only London but the national prosperity. The new offices have been provided mainly by new construction, although to some extent by change of user, on a scale which far exceeded the war damage loss and by 1962 there was in Central London one-third more office space than in 1939.
I should perhaps interpolate here that as the community grows more prosperous and its productive processes grow more sophisticated there is a natural, and, on the whole, desirable, trend for there to be less need of workers on the factory floor and more need of them in the processes of distribution and of office work and of services; but this does not mean, of course, that all that office work has to be done in the same place. As a result of this new building and change of use, office employment in Central London has been steadily rising to the tune of about 150,000 new jobs during the last ten years.
If nothing were done about it, this trend could be expected to continue for at least some years. In the middle of last year 18 million square feet of office floor space was either under construction, or had received planning permission and fresh applications are coming along all the time.
I scarcely need to emphasise to the House the implications for housing and transport of this growth of employment in a small central area. Finding land for housing within London or even within reach of London without violating the green belt is difficult enough, even for the amount of employment already there. When there is extra employment the task becomes harder, imposing strains not only upon land but upon the transport which brings people in to work from the periphery outside London and also on the transport in the centre of London which distributes people once they have arrived at the railway termini. Nor do I think that there can be any doubt that the proper target for any attempt to reduce the rate of increase of jobs in Central London must be in offices rather than in other forms of employment.
Office work takes up well over half the total of jobs in the central area. No other single employment produces this figure. For example, factories in Central London account for 12 per cent., communications for 7 per cent. and shops, despite the obviousness of their omnipresence, account for only 4 per cent. of the employment in Central London. Office work gives the highest employment density of all land uses. It is increasing at a much faster rate than any other use in Central London and much office work, unlike many other forms of central area employment, can be carried out elsewhere at lower cost, without real loss of efficiency, and in very much pleasanter conditions.
The Government have made it clear, particularly in the White Paper, London—Employment: Housing: Land, issued a couple of weeks ago, that they do not intend to stop all further office growth in Central London. What they intend to do is to reduce the rate of growth and to get the growth as a whole better distributed outside as well as inside London. The Bill we are debating is one—and only one—of a balanced series of measures which the Government are taking.
The purpose of the Bill is to make planning control more effective. Planning permission is needed to redevelop or to add to the size of office building. The local planning authority may refuse permission, but if it does so it faces in some cases a risk of paying heavy compensation,

and in others the certainty of doing so. The root of the trouble lies in the Third Schedule to the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, now consolidated in the Town and Country Planning Act, 1962. This Schedule settled what should be regarded for valuation and compensation purposes as falling within the "existing use rights" of land.
Development included in the Third Schedule could be carried out without paying development charge and the possibility of such development was ignored in assessing claims against the £300 million fund. But the inclusion of a particular kind of development in the Third Schedule did not remove the obligation to obtain planning permission.
These existing use rights include certain margins of tolerance. They gave owners of property a tittle elbow room within the system and made it unnecessary to collect development charge for trivial operations or to assess large numbers of claims on the £300 million fund based on the possibility of minor changes. Examples of these tolerances are the notional right to add 10 per cent. to the cubic capacity of a building where a site is redeveloped and to add 10 per cent. to the cubic capacity of a standing building. These two provisions have caused trouble in different ways.
The first with which I shall deal is in rebuilding. The intention of the.original legislation, which was passed in the times of Socialist Government, was to provide a 10 per cent. tolerance, but it was expressed in terms of cubic capacity, not floor space. When it comes to redeveloping an office block or a site with office user rights, it is this reference to cubic capacity which enables the developer to drive a coach and horses through the original intention. With modern building methods, a 10 per cent. increase in the cube can be turned into a 40 per cent. increase in the floor space, and it is floor space that determines employment potential. The present law makes it difficult to see what would happen if the local planning authority tried to prevent an increase of this order.
There is no direct claim to compensation if development within Part I of the Third Schedule is refused, but the owner may, perhaps after clearing his site of buildings, serve a purchase notice, which,


if confirmed, will require the local authority to acquire his land at a price which assumes that he would be allowed to redevelop to 110 per cent. of the cube.
Many complications spring from the service of a purchase notice. The essential point is that the L.C.C., the planning authority concerned with the Central London problem, has felt that it stood in serious risk of paying heavy compensation in certain cases and has consequently felt unable to give decisions which would prevent this massive floor space increase on redevelopment.
The Bill puts this situation right by making it clear that the planning authority will not run the risk of compensation where it restricts the increase in office floor space to 10 per cent. where an office site is redeveloped. The notional right to increase the cubic capacity by 10 per cent. remains, but any floor space exceeding 110 per cent. of that in the original building will have to be put to a use approved by the local planning authority. So much for the redevelopment of buildings.
I turn to the enlargement of existing buildings. The right to add 10 per cent. to the cube of a standing building falls within Part II of the Third Schedule. If permission is refused, there is a direct right to claim compensation. This right originally attached to buildings erected before the new planning system came into effect in 1948 but was extended by the Town and Country Planning Act, 1954, to new buildings also. As a consequence, a developer who has negotiated a detailed planning permission, perhaps for a high building, with a local planning authority and who perhaps has had a decision on appeal from the Minister, can, as soon as the building has been put up, claim the right to add 10 per cent. to its bulk or receive compensation. This makes nonsense of planning control.
The Bill accordingly removes this right for buildings erected after the appointed day for the 1947 Act—that is to say, for buildings the size of which has been settled under the new planning code. The right to add 10 per cent, to the cube of pre-1948 buildings is retained, but this is made subject to the limitation that the local planning authority may, without compensation, limit its increase in floor space devoted to a particular use. None

of these changes affects development for which permission has already been granted.
These are the main provisions of the Bill. Minor consequential effects, some of which are complicated, are probably best dealt with in Committee. However, questions may be asked about the effect of the Bill on compulsory purchase values. Under Section 15 (3) of the Land Compensation Act, 1961, it is laid down that, where land is being acquired on compulsory terms, one of the assumptions for valuation is that permission would be granted for any Third Schedule development. Since the effect of the Bill is to limit the extent of such development, the result will be to reduce the compensation payable if, and only if, this particular assumption is the crucial one for the valuation and the changes made to the Third Schedule are relevant to the land in question.
In the great majority of cases, the Bill will have no effect on compulsory purchase values. In many cases, the value of the property will be set at a higher figure because of a development plan allocation, a planning permission, or a certificate of appropriate alternative development. In others, the Third Schedule changes will be quite irrelevant—for instance, in the case of undeveloped land. Obviously, there would be a difference if a public authority were to acquire compulsorily an office block in Central London which is ripe for redevelopment.
Although the Bill has as its object the tackling of the rate of growth of offices in Central London, it is of general application and extends to the whole of the United Kingdom. This is because the Third Schedule is a king-pin of the planning code, and it would be very cumbersome to have different bases of valuation for different types of property and for property falling on different sides of a boundary line. Moreover, trouble might arise anywhere through abuse of the provision which allows additions to be made to existing buildings under threat of compensation.
It is, nevertheless, the case that the office problem is primarily a London problem. In areas where the congestion associated with the Metropolis is not present, developers may expect to find


planning authorities very willing to co-operate in finding a mutually acceptable scale of office development. My hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) asked about this question earlier.
Scottish law, though not consolidated, runs parallel to the English legislation, except in one respect, which the Bill now brings into line, and corresponding changes are made.
The general effect of the Bill financially will be to reduce local authority expenditure of a kind which may attract grant, but Clause 3 is necessary to cover the theoretical possibility that there may be an increase in rate-deficiency grant—Exchequer equalisation grant in Scotland—because of an increase in the amount of compensation payable on revocation orders.
The main provisions of the Bill are deemed to operate from the date of introduction, 25th February. This is necessary to forestall possible attempts to evade its effect while it is going through Parliament.
It may be argued that the Bill is a purely restrictive Measure which will not solve the problem of office growth. However, the Bill is only one part of a balanced policy which consists of reducing the demand in the centre by dispersal of Government offices and by encouraging movement of office staff, if not of whole offices, outside Central London, preferably outside London as a whole. Another part of the same policy is to encourage the creation and expansion of attractive office centres away from the heart of London, where facilities for housing and transport and for living a reasonable life are much more readily available, and to this end discussions with local planning authorities will start at once. The Bill therefore takes its part in the overall policy I have indicated by giving local planning authorities the ability to prevent undue office growth in the wrong places.
It is clearly understood by the Government that a policy of restriction by itself is useless, impracticable and contrary to our economic interests as a nation. But by holding back over-development of the centre and encouraging the provision of offices in the right places outside, legitimate commercial needs will be met.
A good deal of routine work will, the Government hope, be transferred to places where it can be done as well, and more cheaply, and room will be left for those whose work requires them to be at the heart of things. It is with the intention of securing that this happens that the Government have introduced the Bill; are opening discussions with local planning authorities outside London; are reviewing the location of Government offices; and are just about to set up the Location of Offices Bureau.
As a result of this policy, of which the Bill is a vital part, staff will enjoy better working conditions; and, although very difficult problems of housing and transport will remain to be solved, they will be easier to manage than if the Government had failed to act.

4.8 p.m.

Mr. Michael Stewart: We on this side of the House shall be glad to see the Bill passed into law, though we cannot regard it as meriting more than one or one and a half cheers as a solution to the whole problem with which it is concerned. We see the Government timidly dipping their toe into the cold bath of planning into which they will have to immerse themselves if the basic problem is ever to be solved.
I will begin by referring to the legal complexities which the mere text of the Bill seeks to unravel. As I understand the matter, the present position is that development is not regarded in law as new development if, when a building is rebuilt or enlarged, its cubic content is not increased by more than 10 per cent. If it fulfils that condition it is not regarded in law as new development.
The Minister referred to that as "a notional right" to increase the cubic content by 10 per cent. but I am not quite clear what is meant by "notional" in that context—any more than I am clear what it means in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill, for I would have thought that the right to increase one's building by 10 per cent. in cubic content under the present law was a perfectly clear legal right and I do not see what is added to common sense by calling it a notional right. Similarly, let us consider the lesser right given in the Bill. I cannot see what is meant by referring to it as a notional right or


condition. I mention this point in case there is some hidden meaning in the word which has escaped me, but I do not think that there is.
Difficulties arise from the fact that when a developer exercised this right to increase the cubic content of the building by 10 per cent. in the process of rebuilding, enlargement or alteration, he could increase the number of different floors in the building so that the 10 per cent. increase in cubic content could mean as much as a 40 per cent. increase in floor space and a corresponding increase in the number of employees. All that, therefore, would be added to this problem of the growth of office jobs in Central London, which is what the whole argument is concerned with.
It was difficult for the planning authority—in this case, the London County Council—to deal with the matter because if it refused permission it was liable either to have to pay compensation, or to be faced with certain other financial embarrassments. That planning authority has found through experience certain ways of dealing with this problem—which I will touch on later—but it was always in some difficulty in certain circumstances. Its power to prevent the growth of office employment in Central London was always somewhat hampered while the Third Schedule was part of the law. I appreciate that it was sensible to make the Third Schedule a part of the law in 1947 when there was a great deal of war damage and a lot of rebuilding to be done and when it would have been wrong to have restricted that process.
We are now in a totally different situation and the present position has been developing over the past sixteen years. If I understand the Bill aright—and I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong—the alteration it makes in the law is this. Regarding buildings erected since 1948—since the appointed day of the 1947 Act—there will be no right to increase the cubic content for either enlargement or rebuilding; certainly not as I read the Bill for enlargement, although I am not quite clear on the question of rebuilding—that is, whether or not if one rebuilds a post-1948 building one can enlarge the cubic content by 10 per cent.
I do not think that the Minister made that clear in his speech and, for his benefit, the point I am raising is this. If one rebuilds a post-1948 building does one have even the qualified right under the Bill or no right at all to increase the cubic content by 10 per cent.? I know that if one enlarges such a building one has no right at all, but I am not clear on the other point and I do not think that even the Minister is.

Sir K. Joseph: I think that one has a right to the unused balance, but is the hon. Member talking about the law as it stands now or as it will be under the Bill? Under the Bill the answer is "No", but under the law as it is now one has a right to the unused balance. I hope that the hon. Member will agree that this is more a Committee point.

Mr. Stewart: I want to know just what will be the position if we pass the Bill. If one is rebuilding and not enlarging a post-1948 building, has one any right to increase its cubic content? If one enlarges a building one certainly does not, but if one rebuilds one may or may not, and this is the point on which I would like the Minister's help.

Sir K. Joseph: On rebuilding one has a right to a 10 per cent. increase on the cube, subject to not extending without permission by more than 10 per cent. the existing floor space.

Mr. Stewart: Now we have it clear. On enlargement of a post-1948 building one has no right, while on rebuilding of a post-1948 building one has the qualified right conferred by the Bill; and the nature of the qualified right is that one can still increase the cubic content by 10 per cent, provided that one does not increase the amount of floor space devoted to each particular use in the building by more than 10 per cent. If we have succeeded in translating, so to speak, the Bill thus far, I now want to make two important criticisms of the Measure.
First, I doubt whether it is wise to preserve a right to increase 10 per cent. of the cubic content. If one does that and successively new buildings go up with this increased cubic content—which will usually mean increased height—one will get daylighting problems and, in some cases, an encircling of parks and open spaces and a sort of wall of bulky buildings. Secondly, one must consider the


extra cubic space. What will it be used for?
At present, we have a building of a certain cubic content with a certain floor space divided among certain uses. One is then allowed, under the Bill, to rebuild so that is has 10 per cent. more cubic content. One cannot, however, increase the amount of floor space allocated to any use in the new building by more that 10 per cent. If one has used one's right to increase the cubic content by 10 per cent., and then increases all the floor space by 10 per cent., what will be the result? I understand that the planning authority can say "Yes" or "No" to what one proposes to do and it is here that legal difficulties may arise.
Can the planning authority prevent one from using that extra space for storage purposes; storing, perhaps, merchandise which might otherwise be on display? If one does that one would have more room on the other floors in which to place employees and thus our real problem is to prevent the excessive growth of this. What other uses might be made of this additional space?

Mr. F. J. Ballenger: Perhaps for garages?

Mr. Stewart: That would not be objectionable, because it would not give rise to any real difficulties in regard to the matter under discussion and, in any case, the more garage space we can get in London without damaging other interests, the better, so that suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) should be kept in mind. The right hon. Gentleman should look carefully at the law to see that the existence of this extra space does not give rise to a multiplication of employees.
Another difficulty is this. Suppose that under the Bill, when it becomes law, one rebuilds one's building with an increased 10 per cent. cubic content and one does not increase the floor space by more than 10 per cent. What is to prevent one from later altering the building inside and increasing the floor space, because I understand that for internal works one does not require planning consent? One might, when one first carries through the job, have to comply with the regulations—that the floor space should not be increased by

more than 10 per cent.—but for how long can that position be legally held? These are matters which we will need to look at in detail before we will be satisfied that the permission to increase the cubic content by 10 per cent. is a desirable provision in the law.
I now question whether it is desirable to give even a 10 per cent. increase in the floor space that is available. I question this for two reasons. I mentioned earlier that the London County Council had found some way of mitigating its difficulties under the present law. I am informed that in recent times it has not been at all uncommon for the L.C.C., when faced with an application for rebuilding or enlargement, to negotiate successfully with the owner to such effect that he agrees to put up a new building in which the floor space is not increased. I believe that one of the levers with which that result can be obtained is that if the owner will not agree to do that, then, theoretically at least, the L.C.C. can stick out and refuse consent.
The owner might then be put to the expedient of, first of all, demolishing the building so that there is no beneficial use to him and then apply with the threat of getting compensation. But rather than put himself to that trouble he agrees in the first place to rebuild or enlarge in a way that does not increase the floor space at all. Now, under the Bill, with a clear right to increase the floor space, the result may be in some cases that actually more floor space will come into existence as a consequence of this Measure. I therefore question whether it is desirable to allow this 10 per cent. increase of floor space at all.
I have another reason for questioning it. We know that allowing a 10 per cent. increase in cubic content can mean a 40 per cent, increase in floor space, but we now discover that a 10 per cent. increase in floor space can mean a 20 per cent. increase in numbers employed. A skilful architect faced with the opportunity of increasing floor space by 10 per cent. by a different layout of the offices and a bigger use of communal rooms, instead of small separate rooms, can increase the number of persons who can be employed by more than 10 per cent., and perhaps by as much as 20 per cent.
This, if it is not driving a coach and horses through the law in the way the


Minister said was done at present, is at least getting a bicycle or a motor-cycle through it. And all the time all that we are concerned with is to prevent an undue increase in the number of workers in Central London. I am, therefore, very doubtful whether it is desirable to permit the tolerance either in cubic content or in floor space. I should have preferred to see a Bill which did away with the tolerance allowed in the Third Schedule of the 1947 Act.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: Would the hon. Member not agree with another matter to which he has not referred? The modern layout and the need to get rid of these very tall rooms or to reduce their height inevitably, in modern architecture, will provide greater floor space in redevelopment and will achieve the objects the hon. Member wants. At the same time, surely, we do not want to prevent improved designs and standards which will naturally flow from rebuilding in modern design.

Mr. Stewart: Granted that we want to see a building rebuilt in modern design, that means that if we allow people to rebuild with no increase in floor space they can still rebuild in modern design to their own advantage but with only a limited increase in the number of employees. If we allow them to rebuild with a 10 per cent. increase in floor space to begin with, and then add the effects of modern design to that, we may have a 20 per cent. increase in the number of employees. This is what we want to watch. I say that we can have a modern and more satisfactory building without permitting this 10 per cent. increase in floor space.
I have tried to speak of the contents of the Bill as I understand them and of a major criticism I have of the Bill. I want now to look at the effect of the Bill on office space and on employment in the next twenty years. I shall follow the Minister's cue and relate the argument, in the main, to London. I agree that the Bill covers the whole of Great Britain, but we are concerned chiefly with the metropolitan problem.
In round figures there are at the moment 115 million square feet of office space in London. We may expect over the next twenty years, as a result of planning consents already given and of related

matters, another 20 million square feet to be added to that, whether or not the Bill is passed. If we then ask what further addition there will be as a result of rebuilding or extensions, first, under the present law and, secondly, if the Bill is passed, I believe that the answers are something like this. Under the present law we should have in the next twenty years as a result of rebuilding and extension a further 20 million square feet of office space in London.
Under the Bill, even with the most optimistic expectation of what it will do, we shall have an extra 5 million square feet. The effect of the Bill, therefore, in twenty years' time will be roughly that instead of 150 million square feet of office space in Central London there will be about 135 million square feet. It is a reduction twenty years from now of about 10 per cent. of the office space.
Even so, the Bill by itself, if it stands as it is now and is not altered in the way I suggested earlier, will be responsible for a further 5 million square feet of office floor space in London. That may well mean 50,000 more office employees. And when we speak of employees we have to think of the effect of that on our transport system. Over the last ten years the number of commuters, of people travelling from the outer parts of London to the centre during working days, between seven o'clock and ten o'clock in the morning, has been going up by about 15,000 every year. Even with the Bill passed, that rate of increase is likely to go on and probably to be exceeded
We have here, therefore, quite a serious problem even if the Bill is passed. It seems to me that when we discuss this problem of commuters it is brought home to us that it is quite wrong to suppose that arguments about planning, arguments in which we have to think in millions of square feet and in millions of people, and arguments which are full of statistics are arguments which are inhuman in their contents. What we are discussing is the real misery imposed on large numbers of people in having to do a normal day's work and having hours added to their day in acute discomfort at each end in getting to and from work. This problem of untold human discomfort and vexation is only remediable if we are prepared to think


in planning terms and to weigh arguments which involve millions of people and millions of square feet of office space.

Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Gentleman is being most thorough and cogent about the Bill, but he will remember that it is only part of the policy. Although he is right in his analysis of the probable effect over twenty years of the Bill taken by itself, the Government intend to reduce the demand in Central London by other means as well. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that the Bill is not the whole of the Government's policy, although it is an essential part of it.

Mr. Stewart: I was coining to that point later. What worries me is that the Bill is the only real thing in the policy. The rest comprises persuasion, hopes, the setting up of studies and the holding of inquiries. Here in the Bill we have an ounce of fact, and what is disappointing is that it is not much more than an ounce.
I have argued that on an optimistic view the Bill may cause the total amount of office space in London to be 15 million square feet less than it otherwise would be in twenty years from now, but one thing that could wreck all that would be for the Government to consent to some of the ideas now being considered by British Railways. If British railways' proposals for office building on their land are allowed to go ahead, the whole of that gain of 15 million square feet can be swept away. That is a very acute and immediate danger. I do not, of course, say that there are not parts of the country—there may well be many parts—in which it would be thoroughly sensible for the railways to have offices built on their land—it would meet a need for offices and it would help finance the railways—but, quite certainly, London is not one of those places.
If there is to be building on railway land in London it should be the building of dwellings, not of office buildings; it should be residential. It would be quite absurd to wreck the whole purpose of the Bill and drive a great wedge into the Government's claim of a coherent policy on office employment in Central London merely to reduce the railway deficit by £1 million. That would also be an absurd form of accounting, because the long-

term effects of allowing the multiplication of office development in Central London is to cost individuals far more than will be saved to railway finances.
Judging from reports we have seen in the newspapers, it may come to some kind of conflict in this matter between the railways and the London County Council as planning authority. I hope that the Minister will not be a party to exercising any kind of pressure on the planning authority to consent to these deplorable proposals. Indeed, he should make it quite clear that the whole weight of his influence is the other way round.
I recently asked the Minister whether, under the present law, the railways could be prevented from going ahead with this proposal. He replied that they could, and that there was no need for fresh legislation. He has the powers; I hope that he will use them, and make quite sure that we do not get an enormous addition to the amount of office accommodation in Central London as a result of railway policy. Do not let him be led away by any siren suggestion from the railways that if they are allowed to run up a great deal of office accommodation they will, in return, let out a bit of land on which to build houses. If the railways have land available for that purpose it should, in any case, be let out for that purpose. There should be no bargain about it.
I can now refer to some of the surrounding circumstances of the Bill. Fortunately, as we are on Second Reading, we can refer not only to what is in the Bill, but to the general circumstances surrounding it. I am glad of that, because by the time it has been dealt with in Committee and has come to its Third Reading I have no doubt that, though it will be very necessary, it will not be very interesting to restrict ourselves to exactly what is in the Bill.
We come now to what the Minister referred to in a recent interjection—the other items of policy that the Government have, of which this Bill is simply part. Much of that policy, as far as it affects London, has been outlined in the White Paper, London—Employment: Housing: Land. There are reasons for some disquiet about that. For instance, page 6 of the White Paper contains the Government's views about better distribution of offices. Paragraph 26 envisages


more offices at such places as Croydon, Watford, Surbiton and Ilford, which, they feel, would be filled, not by people who were commuting into Central London but by people who were working in those places.
Has the Minister any certainty at all that that will happen? Has he studied what is happening with regard to new office accommodation in areas such as those? I think that he will find that some of that accommodation is being occupied, not by firms which, as the White Paper says, must remain within a short distance of Central London but by firms that have actually moved southwards from other parts of the kingdom; and that, far from providing relief from Central London, these are, again, merely part of the magnet drawing office accommodation from other parts of the country.
One is the more disquieted by that when one looks at some of the things the Government themselves have been doing. Here we have the Government saying in the White Paper that it would be an excellent thing to have offices at such places as Croydon, Watford, Surbiton and Ilford that will be filled by people living near, and not commuting, but what are the Government themselves doing meanwhile? They are taking enormously expensive leases of offices bang in the centre of London and, in some cases, filling them with Government employees who were previously working at Pinner. That is moving in exactly the opposite direction from what paragraph 26 of the White Paper envisages.
We have never had in the House, although the subject has been raised often, any justification for the policy pursued in regard to State House, Holborn. Here, a great block of office buildings was put up, apparently, to begin with, with precious few customers for it, and then the Government came to the rescue of those who were putting it up and took a lease of the building, thus not only increasing the number of Central London employees but giving future creators of new office blocks the comfortable feeling that they can run the stuff up and that, if they cannot find anyone else to take it off their hands, sooner or later the Government will do so—exactly the opposite impression

from that which the Government should have created.
What is really needed? In the Bill, strike out the tolerances altogether. Do not allow the increase either in the cubic content or the floor space. Elsewhere than in the Bill—in the surrounding parts of policy—the Government should proceed on certain lines. I shall now make one or two suggestions, not all of which I should expect the Government to adopt—to some extent they are alternative to each other—but all of which I think the Government should look at.
The Government should consider whether they should not have a firm limit on the total of new office building to be allowed in London for some considerable period into the future, and, broadly speaking, they should not do much more than allow the replacement of what we already have. It is very good to replace an out-of-date office, unattractive to work in, by one of modern design, but we must find a way of allowing that to be done in London without all the time increasing the total number of office workers. There is nothing in the Government's present policy to produce that result.
Next, the Government might consider whether they ought to imitate the action of the French Government in zoning certain parts of Paris, with levies that have to be paid to the Government by those who insist on putting up buildings of a certain kind in some of those zones; that is to say, a scheme of financial incentives and disincentives to prevent the over-concentration of building in areas where one does not want too much of it. The Government might also look at the possibility of a payroll tax that would not operate equally over the country as a whole, but so designed as to vary from one area to another, again to prevent the over-concentration of employment in certain areas. In Greater London, instead of thinking in terms, as the White Paper does, of allocations for new office use in places like Croydon, Watford, Surbiton or Ilford, they should look further out and ensure that, where new allocations are made, they are made right the other side of the green belt, and free of the London conurbation altogether.
The Minister might also look at the state in which his unhappy London Government Bill is at present, because if we are to get all this right there must be


firm planning control in Central London and that, I think, under the set-up of the new Bill, means control by the Greater London Council. In the present state of the London Government Bill it really is not clear what will be the comparative powers of the Greater London Council and of the separate boroughs.
I think that I have given the Minister enough to go on with and in case, in view of what I have said, he may have forgotten it, I say again that we on this side of the House would like to see this Bill passed into law.

4.40 p.m.

Sir Richard Nugent: I should like to say a word of welcome for my right hon. Friend's Bill. May I say of the speech of the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) that I was much interested in the analysis in the earlier part of it and find myself in agreement with the hon. Gentleman in wondering why my right hon. Friend did not, so to speak, go the whole hog and remove the whole of the 10 per cent. tolerance. I do not think that I need say more about the hon. Gentleman's interesting speech. The House, I am sure, enjoyed it.
I should like to say something on the surrounding circumstances in my opening remarks, because I shall say it from the point of view of a recently formed body which is struggling with the planning problems of the London region, namely, the Standing Planning Conference for the London region, which was formed at the end of last year.
The London County Council have come together with the surrounding County Councils of Middlesex, Surrey, Kent, Essex, Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire and Berkshire—I hope that I have not forgotten any of them—and the county boroughs within this area to form this standing conference on planning to try to get a common approach to their development plans. This is a most enterprising and admirable development which, I am sure, my right hon. Friend will welcome. I take no credit for it myself, only that I was asked to be chairman of the body. The good will and impetus that these county councils have behind them in what they have done augers well, I think, for the future of what they might do. I need hardly say that these new powers, which my right hon. Friend is asking the House

to give in the Bill, will give a measure of control over office development and will be very welcome indeed to this conference of planning authorities in the job which they are trying to do.
I should say that they are setting about their work by setting up panels of planning officers and clerks to study the facts so that they may get a common understanding of these interlocking problems which affect London in the centre and all the surrounding counties inevitably with the great commuting problems to which the hon. Member for Fulham referred. I expect that these factual studies will, when they are finally completed, throw up a picture on which the county councils will, I hope, reach agreed conclusions. This will be a most valuable basis for their development plans, harmonising together, to reach planning sense in the London region, which quite evidently we have not reached up-to-date, and, I am sure that it will be a great help to my right hon. Friend in the planning that he has for the South-Eastern region.
As has been implied by previous speeches, the key to the whole of the planning problem of the London region is employment—jobs. It is as simple as that. The Barlow Committee recognises this in its Report in 1940 which led to the Location of Industry Act, which gave effective control of industry but not of offices. The result has been, as my right hon. Friend said, particularly in the postwar years, the huge uncontrolled growth of offices in the London region and particularly in Central London.
My figures are about the same as my right hon. Friend's. In the London region itself, places of employment in offices from 1951 to 1961 increased from 1·32 million to 1·62 million-300,000 jobs and two-thirds of these in the London County Council's district. All the signs seen in the last two years indicate that the increase is surging forward and becoming even more rapid. Nothing could more completely justify the action my right hon. Friend is taking in this Bill. Of course, this uncontrolled increase in jobs plays complete havoc with the development plans of all the local authorities concerned—housing, education, transport, the whole lot. It just makes no sense at all.
To repeat what I said at the beginning of my speech, I rather wondered why my right hon. Friend had not gone the whole hog and removed the 10 per cent. tolerance altogether, even with the qualification of limiting it to floor space. To do so does not mean that new development cannot have an increase in space; it simply means that it must Le subject to the best judgment of the planning authority. I would have thought that where the planning situation is already so tight it might well have been wise for my right hon. Friend to consider going that extra step. Of course, even with these powers the planning authority has no right to stop the rebuilding of an office building even if it thinks that it should not be rebuilt there. It will still have to be rebuilt there, and the authority has no power to steer it somewhere else if it thinks that that would be an improvement.
There is compensation, but the compensation is very heavy. I make the point advisedly. I do not suggest that my right hon. Friend should go as far as that, but I make the point that the planning authority is still left with a formidable problem to try to achieve the right balance in this difficult matter. What I am sure my right hon. Friend will do is to watch this matter very closely as it develops over the coming years to make sure that even with the Bill the planning authority will have the necessary degree of control. London's importance, both nationally and internationally, is based on its commerce, finance and banking, and all these things need offices. To restrict that natural growth of London's commercial and financial life would be eventually to kill its tremendous international importance.
I was very glad to hear my right hon. Friend make the remarks he did about his intentions to avoid such restrictions. Equally, if this office development is to continue unabated at the present rate it will mean running into the danger of killing London by congestion, because it will be strangled. This is the dilemma. My right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on taking this step forward to try to deal with it. I am very glad to hear my right hon. Friend's intentions and I am sure that whoever has these powers they will be used wisely and not restric-

tively, wisely to get the right balance so that the life of this great City may continue to prosper.
In this context, I add this comment about my right hon. Friend's other intention about the Location of Offices Bureau. As the hon. Member for Fulham rightly said, this can be no more than a piece of machinery for persuasion. But, of course, it can be very effective, especially over a period of time, in bringing about the right climate of opinion to persuade people to go with their offices outside Central London, not only, as the hon. Member for Fulham said, this side of the green belt but beyond the green belt where, undoubtedly, some of them could go.
I wait with interest to see how my right hon. Friend develops his plan for the bureau and how he will proceed with it. It is, I think, a very important part of his whole strategy in trying to achieve the right balance of office building in London, with a healthy life for the Londoner, not imposing strains upon the commuter yet not restricting the essential commercial life of the City. I hope that my right hon. Friend will go forward with this plan soon. I am quite sure that the local authorities in the London Regional Planning Council will be only too happy to co-operate in his plans in this direction. I am sure that the extra power he promises to give them will be a valuable asset in the difficult job that they are setting out to do.

4.51 p.m.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: I can echo practically everything said by the right hon. Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent) and by the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart). It is worthy of note that the three parties are unanimous in their attitude to the Bill. That attitude could be summed up as one of qualified and rather tepid approval.
The hon. Member for Fulham said that he would have preferred the compensation provisions to be removed from the Bill altogether. Here I quote from a report issued last year by the Liberal Party's Housing Committee. Speaking of the Third Schedule to the 1947 Act, we said:
This Schedule should be amended in such a way as to remove liability for compensation when permission is refused for any increase in the existing floorspace of offices.


I emphasise that the reference is to the existing floor space of offices, not to the cubic capacity of offices. My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) said exactly the same in the House on 4th February this year. I quote that report only because some hon. Members opposite think that the Liberal Party has no policy. It may do them good to be reminded that in most matters we anticipate them.
It has been said that, even if there were no growth in the floor space of offices, there could still be some growth in office employment in Central London. The hon. Member for Fulham calculates that, with the provisions in the Bill, 5 million sq. ft. will be added to the floor space of offices in Central London over the next twenty years as a result of alterations and rebuilding, whereas, without the Bill, there would have been another 20 million sq. ft.
This does not necessarily give us the correct picture as regards the growth of employment. We cannot say that rebuilding and alterations will result in one quarter of the increase in employment which would have come if we had not had the Bill. This is why, although the figures seem to indicate such a drastic reduction in the increase of floor space which will take place over the next twenty years, I still think that we ought to take wider powers to curb the increase and we should have removed altogether from the local authorities the liability to compensation.
Without teeth, the Location of Offices Bureau will be quite useless. I do not understand the Government's argument for refusing to subject office development to the same procedures as operate at present in respect of industrial development. The argument in paragraph 18 of the White Paper can be summed up in this way: one cannot apply the same procedures to offices because one does not know who will be the ultimate occupier. The developer will put up offices "on spec" and he will subsequently let them to tenants. The person who undertakes industrial development, on the other hand, knows who will ultimately occupy the building. In many cases, of course, he will himself be the occupier.
Is it not logical to assume that, if we took the step of subjecting office develop-

ment to the I.D.C. procedure, would-be developers would be forced into producing the names of their prospective tenants so that the Board of Trade could then see whether the development was justified or not? If this made it more difficult for people to put up extra office space, it would be all to the good.
The hon. Member for Fulham spoke of the impact of the growth of office employment in Central London on the transport services. This is a closely relevant point. In paragraph 15 of the White Paper we read:
Even allowing for all the improvements that have taken place or are now planned, the capacity which can be provided on the existing railway lines, short of major and extremely expensive new capital works, will be exhausted in a few years if the present rate of increase in employment in Central London continues.
That is a masterly understatement, and I wish that the writer could be forced to travel on the 8.36 a.m. from Orpington to Cannon Street every day for a week. We are having to put up with the effect of increased employment in Central London, which the Bill will not halt but merely stem, and we are told in the White Paper, by implication, that the transport facilities available to us are still satisfactory for the next few years. This is simply not true.
In an intervention during the speech of the hon. Member for Fulham, the Minister hinted that there were other measures which he was prepared to take to curb the growth of office development. At least, that is what I understood him to say. It would be a great advantage if we could have an idea of what is in his mind. It is wrong to look at the Bill just in isolation.
In conclusion, I say, as did the hon. Member for Fulham, that, although I am not satisfied that the provisions of the Bill go far enough, I still give it a limited welcome.

4.58 p.m.

Sir Colin Thornton-Kemsley: I am glad that I have been able to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, because I was disappointed to be prevented by indisposition from being in my place a fortnight ago when the House debated the subject of town and country planning on my right hon. Friend's presentation of the White Paper.
With the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart), I am one of the few Members now—unfortunately, increasingly few—who for weeks and weeks and months and months sat in the Standing Committee on the Town and Country Planning Bill of 1947. I looked up the proceedings on that Bill the other day. My right hon. Friend the Member for Dorking (Sir G. Touche) was the Chairman of the Committee. In addition to the hon. Member for Fulham, the membership of the Committee included my right hon. Friend the Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Hare), who is now Minister of Labour, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), who was Minister of Health, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth), who was formerly Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department. Those in another place who were present were the present Lord Chancellor, the late lamented Speaker and the noble Lords, Lord Silkin, who was the Minister in charge of the Bill, Lord Conesford and Lord Molson.
As the hon. Member for Fulham has reminded us, the background at that time was one of ageing buildings much in need of reconstruction and modernisation. The purpose of the Third Schedule of the 1947 Act was to allow owners a margin for improvement without having to pay a development charge. In Committee, everyone recognised—and Member after Member on both sides spoke about this—that the provisions in the Bill would result, as the Minister said, in the erection of better, more efficient and more valuable buildings. Naturally, we on this side, who were then in opposition, urged that the 10 per cent. tolerance was not enough.
We pointed out that when a man sets out to modernise a building the requirements of health, sanitation and amenity make it desirable in many instances that more than one-tenth should be added. At the same time, we were by no means convinced that cubic content was the right basis to adopt. I was interested to see that the present Lord Chancellor, who was then the Member for Daventry, moved an Amendment which would have had the effect of substituting "lettable

floor space" for "cubic capacity". With the benefit of hindsight, we can see what advantages this change would have had if it had been accepted.
In supporting the Bill, I want to say two things which may not be entirely palatable to my right hon. Friend. First, I do not think that anything is to be gained by pretending that we are not in this legislation withdrawing what is, in effect, a proprietary right, which, in certain cases, could be of considerable monetary value to property owners. I think that that is absolutely undeniable, and I see no point in brushing that fact aside.
Secondly, it is idle to deny that the effect of this legislation will not be to push office rentals in the central area of London to still higher levels. I have seen it reported in the Press that my right hon. Friend the Minister claimed at a Press conference on the Bill on 25th February that the policy of restricting office accommodation in the central area should not force up office rents. With the greatest respect, I say that that is complete nonsense. Any restriction of an article already in great demand has the effect of inflating the price, and London office rentals are no exception to that general rule.
If the Bill will result, in some cases, in a withdrawal without compensation of a substantial proprietary right, and, moreover, if it will inevitably lead to a further increase in office rentals in London, why do I support it? The reason is this. It was pointed out in an admirable booklet produced last year by the Town and Country Planning Association and called "Paper Metropolis" and in Appendix 2 to the White Paper, Cmnd. 1952 of 1963, that the effect, in practice, of rebuilding an old-fashioned office or block of offices which had high ceilings, wide corridors and stairways, thick dividing walls and a number of small rooms, taken in conjunction with the 10 per cent. permitted addition to the cubic content of the former building, sometimes resulted in spectacular increases in the floor area. The White Paper says that the increase might be
of the order of 40 per cent. in some cases".
"Paper Metropolis refers to an increase of employment capacity of about 40 per cent. and perhaps even more.
With London becoming more and more congested with office accommodation and, the problem of commuting daily increasing, the time has come, and, indeed, is overdue, when everything possible should be done to discourage further office building in London and to encourage the dispersal of offices out of London by every legitimate means. If a few people are hurt in this process, it is unfortunate, but, in my view, it will be a small price to pay for the better balance which will be achieved by the spread of office accommodation over a much wider area and for a reduction in what the hon. Member for Fulham called the human discomfort in daily commutting of which the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) has first-hand and recent experience.
In passing, I agree with the hon. Member for Fulham about the need to prevent office development over railway land. I happen to be dealing professionally at the moment with one large railway development scheme in which we propose to provide a lot of garage space and some commercial space for shops on the ground and first floors, but to make a very considerable addition to the residential capacity of the site by building a large number of flats and no offices. I am sure that this is the right development of railway land. It is all right to use the land for shops on the first and ground floors and multi-storey garages and flats, but not for offices. There are enough offices in London without using land for that purpose.
Since I have been goaded by the hon. Member for Fulham, I wish to say a few words about State House, Holborn. I do this out of a sense of fairness, because, like other hon. Members, I have made a personal investigation into what appeared at first sight to be a rather considerable scandal which should be very much deprecated. I am satisfied as a result of my investigations that the Ministry of Public Building and Works had an urgent need about two or three years ago for office space in Central London, first, for the regional offices of the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance north of the Thames, and, secondly, for a branch of the Patent Office, which had to be near Whitehall.
The Ministry was offered and was on the point of taking a large office building

in Tottenham Court Road for that purpose, but at the last moment the transaction fell through. It was then unexpectedly offered a lease, on extremely favourable terms, of State House, Holborn, at a rent which then was favourable, but which undoubtedly now would be a bargain. That enabled the Ministry to put in people who needed to be in that part of London and also other tenants to fill up the whole building who will be moved out in due course when other people, who, again, have to be in Central London, will be brought in.
There is no doubt that State House is a bargain for the Ministry of Public Building and Works. The Ministry could sub-let at a large profit rental any accommodation that was surplus to its requirement. After investigation, I am sure that the Department's attitude has been perfectly correct and is thoroughly defensible. Indeed, the Ministry has a particularly good record in persuading Government Departments to move out of London. I am sure that the good work which it has already done in this matter will be strengthened by the review which Sir Gilbert Flemming is to undertake into headquarters Civil Service staffs in London.
I have only one other point to make. The evil which the Government seek to remedy arises only in respect of office development and redevelopment, yet to put this right owners of all types of property—houses, flats, warehouses and shops—are to be penalised. I wonder whether this is wise in the case of residential property. I have in mind particularly the former residential properties in Mayfair and in parts of Belgravia which are now the subject of temporary licences for office purposes granted by the London County Council. This is a peculiarly difficult problem, but it must be solved if we are to achieve as much decentralisation of offices from London as we would wish.
Briefly, the position is that a very large number of former palatial residences—the residences, if one may use the term, of the moneyed, leisure classes—in Mayfair and in parts of Belgravia are now quite incapable of being used for residential purposes. They cannot be broken up into flats. They have large wide halls, they are extremely lofty, they have imposing staircases and lofty reception rooms and they are appointed in a


way which makes it quite impossible for them to be divided up into flats and used for residential purposes. The London County Council did the only possible thing in saying that it would treat this as a special problem and would allow licences for a period of years for these residential properties to be used for office purposes.
If we are to do our job properly, we must ensure that in due course when those properties come back for redevelopment, they will be re-developed for residential and not for office purposes. Unless we do this, our policy will fail. It is a large problem, but we must do it.
Therefore, if we are to restore a proper balance between residential and office use in the West End, we should be firm in resisting appeals for the extension of office licences and we should facilitate rebuilding for residential purposes when these buildings come up for redevelopment. Yet the present floor space plus a 10 per cent. tolerance will result in the uneconomic development of this type of property. I hope that my right hon. Friend will look particularly at this special aspect of a problem which is a very baffling one.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. E. G. Willis: I do not often find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley)—

Mr. William Ross: Twice in one day.

Mr. Willis: —hut on this occasion have a large measure of agreement with a great many of the things he has said. I agree, for example, with the hon. Member's remarks about the necessity for developing residential rather than office accommodation in certain areas. There can be no doubt that the balance is completely wrong. This brings about an enormous number of undesirable social consequences. Anything that can be done to correct this state of affairs is desirable.
I recognise the difficulty that the hon. Member mentioned when the limitation of 10 per cent. is an overall limitation rather than a limitation upon office building. This is part of the whole difficulty of

dealing with the problem of the immense office development which has taken place in London in recent years. We on this side of the House tried to do something about this in the Local Employment Bill with an Amendment which would have placed office development in the same category as industrial building and would have made the development of office building subject to industrial development certificates.
I recognise, of course, the difficulties which that would entail. I introduced a Ten-Minute Rule Bill last Session for precisely the same purpose. I cannot help feeling that much more than is now suggested must be done if we are to get the spread of office building which is desirable. Nobody can have any doubt as to its desirability.
I do not have figures with me, but speaking from memory I believe that during the past 10 years something like 15,000 new office jobs have been created each year in London alone. When I compare this with the fact that last year, in Scotland, we obtained only 9,000 new jobs, I am worried. One of our difficulties in Scotland occurs when firms are taken over. A shoe firm in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) was taken over by a large combine, with the result that the whole of the offices of that establishment were transferred to London, with a consequent loss of employment in my hon. Friend's area and an increase in London. This trend is going on all the time.
I do not think that the Bill will remedy this state of affairs, but to the extent that it contributes to the solution of the problem, we welcome it. We must, however, do much more. A great deal of nonsense is talked about the desirability of certain offices being in London. This applies to certain Government offices as well as to private offices.
We always hear the argument that we need higher executives working in London. I wonder how true that is, with the telephone and other modern facilities available today, together with rapid means of transport. Certain firms I know which have had the courage to put their head offices in the Provinces have not suffered. I frequently visit Norwich and there the Norwich Union has recently rebuilt its head office accommodation, which is a good thing to have


done. But it will not suffer from that in any way. Indeed, the growth of this organisation in recent years shows precisely the opposite.
A large number of other organisations could do this. Always we are told that certain people must be in London, and there is a certain amount of truth in it. But very often the argument is put forward, both by the Government and by private firms, as an excuse because people like to live in London and do not want to uproot themselves and go elsewhere. That feeling might be quite understandable and we are bound to have a certain sympathy with it, hut, of course, the social consequences flowing from it are disastrous.
It makes much of the effort we have devised to try to spread industry more evenly much more difficult to achieve, and to that extent we ought to be doing far more. Certainly the Government will probably find that they must do more. They could set a better example. It is true that the Post Office, for instance, is transferring some 2,000 to 3,000 employees out of London to Durham and Chesterfield during the next three or four years, but this sort of thing could surely be done on a larger scale.
Why, when the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research needs new offices, should it go to High Holborn? Surely it could go further away? We could give the Department a fine site in Scotland and I am sure that the atmosphere there would be more conducive to its well-being and to its high thought. Repeatedly we come across Government Departments being transferred for the sake of obtaining better and larger accommodation—but they are not transferred out of the London conurbation. Why not?
There must be a conscious, determined effort to spread office employment much more widely. It should be taken into those areas where there are difficulties in finding the type of employment offered by offices. There are areas in Scotland—and I presume that this applies to the north of England as well—which badly need office employment. Thus, while I welcome the Bill I believe that we must go much further than the Government are going if we are to tackle the problem adequately.
I see that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is sitting on the Government Front Bench, so I take this opportunity to say that it is time that the Scottish Department got down to the job of consolidating all the town and country planning Acts. We have raised this matter before. There is all sorts of legislation dealing with town and country planning. Some of it is in purely Scottish Acts. Other parts of it are buried in obscure United Kingdom Acts or are tagged on at the end of Sections of other Acts. The last United Kingdom Act had a subsection dealing with Scotland at the end of almost every Section.

Mr. Ross: It was so bad that they had to reprint that Act for Scotland.

Mr. Willis: But, in the first place, the Scottish provisions were buried at the end of the Sections. Nevertheless, we still have all these various pieces of legislation and it is time they were consolidated. The job should be done so that people can find their way through this intricate and technical legislation much more easily.

5.25 p.m.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: One of the advantages of speaking late in a debate is that one can throw away a great many of one's notes because the points they cover have been admirably dealt with by someone else. This is particularly so in this debate, in which there has been a great unanimity of political thinking. For instance, the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) made five suggestions. I marked down four of them in my notes as those with which I agreed. I did not agree with the fifth. I do not like the idea of a payroll tax by area. I should certainly like to see the other four points he made come within the ambit of the Bill, or at least in some other Measure which I hope the Government will pursue.
I agree that there should be some overriding limit on office building over the next decade, that we must look further out, beyond the green belt, and that we should look at the French system—and, indeed, other systems—to see whether there might be a financial disincentive in a particular zone like Central London. I should like to see office development certificates similar to industrial development certificates. Such a certificate


would be required if a developer wanted to build offices within the Metropolis, or within any other area designated as an area of high congestion.
We are concerned with three aspects of this Bill on Second Reading. These are the precise terms of the Bill, what might be added to it in Committee, and the surrounding circumstances to show how the Bill fits into the pattern of what is clearly a new era in planning legislation for London.
About 20 years ago Professor Abercrombie produced his great plan for London. Those of us who have dealt with town and country planning professionally are greatly indebted to him. It was compulsory reading for us. It is worth bearing in mind that fully 20 years ago we were being told by Professor Abercrombie to do what the Government are beginning to do today.
We should also pay tribute to the fact that it was the Lord Chancellor who sought to apply the right criteria to redevelopment or rebuilding, the test now laid down in the Bill, namely, floor space. After all, it is floor space which is sold and floor space which is the criterion with which one is concerned when one is letting any building, office or shop. It is interesting some 15 years later to see how right he was and how much time could have been saved.
There has been only one matter on which there has been any difference of opinion among those who have spoken. I am inclined to the view that the Government are right to accept the additional tolerance, although I hold very strongly to the view that dispersement and diffusion of offices are necessary. I do not want to see anything which may tend to discourage modern designs and modern improvements by architects and developers in the course of their work. Having regard to the amenities which additionally have to be provided today, lavatories and rest rooms and all the other facilities, on the whole it is probably right to keep the tolerance of 10 per cent. in the event of rebuilding when changing from the test of cubic feet to that of floor space. It is quite clear that rooms are very much lower than they were and that lay-out is far more cleverly executed by the modern developer. Walls are thinner and there are many other aspects which

enable modern developers to use space in ways which in the past they did not have to seek.
Although we have these advantages in modern design, I should not want to see the height of buildings decreased in the areas with which we are concerned. It is important to add that there is nothing to prevent a planning authority from giving its own additional permission to further development either upwards or outwards, or additional permission in respect of floor space not covered by the existing permit.
Having said that about the Bill itself, I am not sure about the extent to which we will be able to amend it to carry into effect the suggestions which I now want to make, or whether it would require other and different legislation. I put this purely for the consideration of the Parliamentary Secretary in the absence of the Minister, who was good enough to say that he had to be elsewhere on other important matters relating to the Ministry of Housing. However, his most admirable deputy will no doubt be able to convey these matters to him.
The most obvious areas which would make first-class areas for office development include my own constituency, which is extremely anxious to have development of this kind, Folkestone and Brighton and the south and south-east coast resorts round to Whitstable and Herne Bay. Why are they so suitable? First, they are areas in which people want to live. This is witnessed by the fact that large numbers of people choose to go and live there when they retire. We always have difficulties of unemployment because as soon as we get over one difficulty, another is created by more people coming into the area regardless of whether they have a job because they want to live in this delightful part of the country. The climate is excellent; communications are first class; there is plenty of land available for office and housing development; and the employment position is such that the young people now have to go away to take office jobs in London, so that there is an availability of labour in the area. Furthermore, these are mainly areas where the sort of people who work in offices would like to live, the ordinary staff.
While that might not be true of boards of directors, in these areas there are many


delightful country houses where what I might call the senior executives and directors would live. It is to be noted that in the last year or so a different attitude has been developing among those who are really senior executives. Only two or three years ago, managing directors wanted to live in London and there was a gravitation towards London. Boards of directors were horrified by the idea of having offices outside London, for that was inconvenient for them. This is an important issue because it is they who have to decide the question. However, today these men are becoming far more the country squire and are willing to live in country houses outside town, and many of them are rapidly so doing.
The sort of towns I have mentioned, Margate and similar towns in East Kent and Sussex, and inland towns such as Reading, areas beyond the green belt, are ideally suited to the development of offices and the work which the Location of Offices Bureau could rapidly put in hand with the strong support of almost all the local and planning authorities concerned. These are areas in which it would be known that office staffs would like to live and work. This is the true creation of planning, because work would be brought to the area which was most suitable to the people.
How can the Bill help this process a stage further? I should have thought that it would be possible within the terms of the Bill to carry into effect, by analogy, what was so successfully done by the Government in the Local Employment Act, 1960. It will be remembered that constituencies such as mine, areas of high unemployment, were given priority in attracting new industry. Industrial development certificates were easily granted for these areas while they became extremely difficult for others.
Will the Government consider whether it would not be right and practicable to amend the Bill so that office development certificates are granted by the Government, that is to say, by the Minister and not by the local authority, for areas intended to become areas of office development? Could the Bill contain provisions to attract office development to certain areas, by grant in suitable circumstances, because even if the grant were small, the purpose would be the spirit behind it? Following the lines of

the Local Employment Act, certain areas would be scheduled to be given priority specifically to encourage office development.
I have had to indicate to my own constituency, I think rightly, that the southeast of England cannot expect to have any priorities with industrial development, and I do not think that it wants to have them. The Government are looking to the North-East and Scotland and other areas as meriting priority for industrial development. However, I am not sure that it has been fully appreciated how much unemployment there has been in areas such as Thanet, where, in numbers and in many other ways, it has been even greater than in areas further to the north.
Problems such as that were special problems which had to be met by a vigorous and imaginative approach, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his Parliamentary Secretary on the imaginative approach which they are bringing to these problems at present. It is really only since they came to office that we have been getting an imaginative approach to some of these problems which might well have been dealt with some time ago.
To conclude my comments on that aspect of the matter, this Bill may or may not be the right vehicle. The Government have made a start. They have indicated that there will be other measures. I am not clear whether that involves any other statutory measures. If they are not to be statutory measures, they must be more than purely persuasive to achieve the objective. If they are persuasive only, I do not think that they will have the really powerful effect which is necessary.
I turn now to say a word about the attitude of employers. What consultations have there been, and will there be, with the British Employers' Confederation, the British Institute of Directors, and other similar bodies on this subject? I ask this because it is predominantly the employers who must be encouraged and persuaded to look outside London for their future offices. For example, has any member in the Ministry discussed with the Prudential Assurance Company and the Pearl Assurance Company the possibility of having offices other than in London?
Look at that perfectly appalling mausoleum which the "Pru" has in Holborn. I am sure that two-thirds of the staff employed there would like to live further outside London. I am not suggesting that these big insurance companies should not have headquarters in London, but they could probably be housed in buildings one-eighth of the size of the present buildings. I am sure that a large number of people concerned with certain aspects of the work do not need to come to London to do their work, and would rather not do so.
It seems to me, therefore, that there ought to be consultations with the big insurance companies, and what I might call the industrial aspects, companies like Shell and so on, to get their views about having offices outside London. I think it would be found that many of these people are not anxious to live in the fringe areas of Wimbledon, Surbiton, Malden, and so on, and come in to London every day. Indeed, they would find that living further out enabled them to lead much happier lives. They would find it far better to live in the attractive seaside towns where they would find magnificent education for their children and all the facilities for family life which are more expensive and not so easy to obtain in London. To consider a woman's point of view—and I do this as there are no hon. Ladies present—my wife tells me that the price of vegetables is double in London what it is in Thanet.
These are important factors which the hoard of a company takes into consideration when deciding questions of this kind, because it has to pay higher salaries. In London the price of a secretary is very nearly double the price of one in a seaside town. These are all factors which affect the cost of industry to a marked degree, and it seems to me that these are all matters which can properly be taken into consideration.
One question which my hon. Friend raised, and on which I share his conclusion, concerns these offices on temporary permits. I do not go all the way with the earlier part of what my hon. Friend said, but it is true that many of these offices in the Charles Street and Mayfair areas are very fine, and, indeed, often scheduled, historic buildings with magnificent rooms. It seems to me that

almost all these buildings in Mayfair and Westminster could be returned to residential life.
I do not go the whole way with my hon. Friend, because I think that there are a lot of people of considerable wealth who would be prepared to undertake to live in the greater part of many of these houses. The offices in Catherine Place provide just one example. Many of these offices are used by architects, and I understand that in some cases they not only use them as offices, but live there. If a person is living in a house, he might be permitted to use it for offices as well. By this means we could retain quite a number of buildings which would revert to residential use, but provided they were in such use they could also be used by the occupier for the pursuit of his business.
I hope that we shall recover for Central London a great part of the residential accommodation which it has lost. I strongly support the Bill as far as it goes. I hope that more teeth will be put into it in Standing Committee, if it can be done within the rules of order. If it cannot, I hope that the Government will consider very carefully whether they need any further statutory measures to achieve what is clearly their aim, which is to secure that this policy is carried out. I think that they are entitled to pursue this policy with great vigour, because in town planning it is right to appreciate that there is a rather non-party approach to a large part of the problem.
Both the Labour Party and the Liberal Party are supporting the Government's approach in this matter. Where that is the case, I think that one is entitled to pay some regard to the continuity of policy for some years ahead. If that is so, my right hon. Friend is entitled to take the view that, as the Labour and Liberal Parties agree with this Measure, we shall look 10 to 20 years ahead and see whether we can ensure that there is proper control over office building, because nobody can then complain if the House now decides to accept measures which plan for many years ahead. I hope that my right hon. Friend and the Parliamentary Secretary will have a careful look at what is said during this debate and will be encouraged to continue the path they are so ably following at the moment.

5.48 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: This is proving to be a very agreeable session. Indeed, everyone is agreeing with everyone else. I have listened with pleasure to speeches made by colleagues on the other side of the House with whom I usually differ, and I am in the unusual position of having to agree with the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley) for the second time today. I hope that he will keep it up. Unfortunately, I gather that he is in his last term of Parliamentary life. He should have started this a long time ago, but I will leave that.
I congratulate the Government on Clause 4 (1). It says:
This Act may be cited as the Town and Country Planning Act 1963.
Those are about the only words in the Bill which anyone can understand. I defy anyone to read the rest of the Bill and realise that what we are talking about is office building, and particularly office building in London.
The Schedule must have been written by somebody else. The draftsman who dealt with the main body of the Bill probably gave up the ghost when he reached Clause 4 (1) and handed the job over, probably to a Scotsman, who said, "We must get into the Bill something that means something to anybody who reads it". I am no stranger to the mysteries of town and country planning. No doubt the Parliamentary Secretary will remember the sessions that we had in the last Parliament on the Town and Country Planning Bill, 1958. He will also remember that he was then burdened by having to listen to many Scottish speeches—because although the Bill was said to have no real application to Scotland, at the end of every Clause there was a Scottish application. Two persistent Scottish Labour Members were so determined to find out what the Bill meant that by the time we had finished we had made the Government produce a new Bill that was comprehensible to Scottish lawyers.
The interesting fact is that that Bill was one of the most important town and country planning Measures ever passed by the House, and to it can be traced to a considerable extent the widening of scope for the racket of land speculation.
When we asked why the Bill was made to apply to Scotland we were told that it really was not needed in Scotland. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will remember the explanation given by his right hon. Friend—now the Minister of Pensions and National insurance—that its application to Scotland was purely academic. If he knew the way in which land prices are rising in Scotland today he would realise that this Measure has not been merely academic in its effect upon Scotland.
Why is this Bill made to apply to Scotland? As far as I can gather, it deals with a restriction that is desirable in terms of the congestion of office accommodation and the ever-increasing demand for new accommodation—not in Scotland but in London. Was it essential that we should place the same planning restriction on Scotland or, indeed, on any other part of Britain outside London? I find it difficult to understand why the Bill is framed in this way.
I hope that no one is going to say that its application to Scotland is merely academic, or theoretical. If that is the case, I can visualise my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) having long sessions in Committee explaining exactly how foolish the Scottish Office has been, once again, in allowing Scotland to be dragged at the heels of the English planners.
To the extent that the Bill deals with the important problem of office accommodation in London, I welcome it, just as I welcome the remarks of the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), who asked whether we could put some teeth into the Bill, and deal with this question in the same way as we deal with similar industrial questions by way of industrial certificates. We gave him the opportunity of helping us in this respect when the Local Employment Bill was going through the House, and when Members representing Scotland, the North-East Coast and Wales tried to do exactly the same thing. We moved new Clauses to this effect, but I do not remember the hon. Member being in the Lobby. He is waking up to the importance of this matter very late, just as the Government are.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I do not recollect any Amendment or new Clause dealing with the question of offices. I was in the Chamber during the greater part of the debate on the Bill, and I strongly supported it. I have, found that it meets its purposes admirably.

Mr. Ross: Unfortunately, if that were true the hon. Member would not have been complaining so much about unemployment in his area.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I have felt the benefit of that Measure in that respect.

Mr. Ross: We put down new Clauses relating to office building, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East will remember, and we were in the Chamber for every minute. If the hon. Member studies the Report of the debate he will see that Members tried to put teeth into the Bill—so much so that some of them incurred the considerable displeasure of the then Chief, Whip.
We are now waking up to the importance of this matter both socially and from the point of view of employment. No one can see the morning march and the evening rush of the army of white-collar workers into and out of the centre of this city without feeling some concern about it. This congestion is self-created. Everybody blames everyone else, and everybody wants everyone else to take the first step. If the Government are concerned about the problem I hope that they will follow up by a greater dispersal of Ministries. I see no reason why the Admiralty should be in London. If Rosyth is to be used for refitting the new Fleet, why should not the headquarters of the Admiralty be situated in central Scotland? Most of the admirals seem to be Scottish anyway, and it would be a good thing to bring them home before they retire, and allow them to reap the benefit of the commonsense that prevails in that part of the world. I am not confining the possibility even to that part of the country.
Something was done in this matter between 1945 and 1950, but the tendency is now the other way, having been accelerated by the action of the Government in the earlier part of the decade. We then saw research stations moved down to the south of England from areas which depended upon them for stable employment.

Mr. Willis: Dollis Hill and the Post Office.

Mr. Ross: Dollis Hill was always there. It has been shifted, but not very far. The Government are in no position to criticise private or nationalised industry; they have been doing the same thing in respect of the establishments that they control. I am glad that they have now done some rethinking, and I hope that they will follow this up by a considerable amount of dispersal.
My hon. Friend spoke about what happened in Kilmarnock, in connection with the Saxone take-over, and the retail aspect of the business. There was a measure of centralisation, and that again was in the South. This has been happening in recent years all over the country. Hon. Members opposite recently put out a pamphlet called You Are Entitled To Know. I am entitled to know who owns the industries in Kilmarnock. More and more we find—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Order. I do not want to interrupt the hon. Member, but there must be some limit to the distance that we travel from the Bill.

Mr. Ross: The trouble is that the distance travelled from Kilmarnock by people who used to work in the offices of the Saxone Company there is now very much greater, because of that centralisation. The move south to new office accommodation has been effected in respect of many other industries. There are countless examples of holding companies setting up new offices in London.
We have ignored this development for years, and we are now taking some kind of action. Everyone is agreed that the action is right, but has followed up by saying, "But I do not think that the Bill goes far enough". The present situation has been the inevitable result of the process of thinking on the part of hon. Members opposite, in the past, that no action should be taken and that we certainly do not want to enter into the sphere of controlling this and that.
It was the President of the Board of Trade who, in one of his patronising speeches—the annual patronising speech we get from some Ministers, I do not know whose turn it will be this year


to speak in the debate on Scottish industry—declared three years ago that instead of talking only about Scottish industry, hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies should look to the potentiality and possibility of office accommodation and office building in Scotland to provide new jobs. Now that the right hon. Gentleman is President of the Board of Trade, and has in his hands a considerable amount of power to do this—for instance, by amending the Local Employment Act, with the help of his hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet—he seems rather reluctant to act. The right hon. Gentleman said that it was just as easy to lift the telephone and to speak to people in Scotland or the North-East, and there was no reason why office accommodation should be concentrated in this part of the world.
We are looking forward to action along these lines, if not in the provisions of this Bill, in those of some other. I sincerely hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary w11 give us some idea of what the action will be. The Secretary of State for Scotland has become the "silent man" of Scotland—it has come to that when the most silent man in this House, the Government Chief Whip, has to make a speech in Scotland. It would not be a bad thing if it were the other way round and the Government Chief Whip would allow the Secretary of State far Scotland to make a speech in this House. But I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will tell us what is the importance of this Measure for Scotland and what further plans the Minister has for dealing with this position. I give the Bill a tepid welcome. I congratulate the Government on having wakened up, albeit about 10 or 11 years too late, and I hope that, now they have their eyes open, they will walk the right road.

6.3 p.m.

Mr. George Lawson: The point I wish to make has been made before, but I desire to underline it. I am interested to know why the provisions in this Bill should apply to Scotland. As I understand, because of the very great growth of office building in London, and the constant crowding into London of more and more office workers, it has been found that the measure of control over building, and office building particularly, is inadequate.
Because of the new forms of building and the fact that now the distance between floor and ceiling need not be so great, it is possible to provide more floor space within a given cubic area. Instead of a 10 per cent. cubic capacity being taken as the measure, the accommodation will be calculated on the amount of floor space.
This will be a much more effective way of controlling building and the number of people which an office building can accommodate. If this is the manner in which the influx of office workers into London is to be controlled, I should have thought that the provisions in the Bill ought to be selective and apply to London in such a way as to discourage office building there, compared with other parts of the country. But the provisions of the Bill will apply over the whole country, including Scotland, so I consider that they fail to serve the purpose for which the Bill was introduced. It seems to me that there will be no advantage for those areas which have failed to attract office building, and that is something about which an explanation is required.
It may be that there are other features in the Bill which I have not observed. But since the provisions seem to point in the direction of the Schedule I wish to know, like my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), why it is that they should apply to the whole country, and not only to London where it is desired to discourage overcrowding in offices.
During the last two or three weeks about half-a-dozen cases have been brought to my notice involving young people, boys and girls, almost within the circle of my own acquaintances, who applied for jobs in the Civil Service and found that to obtain such employment they would have to come to London. On making inquiries, I found that there was an over-abundance of applicants for Civil Service jobs in other parts of the country. But in London there were more jobs than applicants to fill them, so these youngsters find themselves being driven to work in London, despite the fact that their parents might be aggrieved about it.
Only last week my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) asked the Secretary of State for Air how many people were employed at the Air Ministry in London and the


answer was 7,000. This is adding to the overcrowding in London. Office building and the number of office workers who are pouring into London, are matters which must be controlled and I doubt whether the provisions in the Bill will achieve that. I do not condemn the Measure. But if one of the objects of its introduction is to control office building in London, it seems to me that that object will be defeated because its provisions are to apply throughout the whole of the country.

6.10 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Bence: Before this debate I followed my usual practice and obtained a copy of the Bill. I found that it is presented by the Minister of Housing and Local Government, supported by the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Attorney-General and also the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Memoer for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) that the limitation of office building, not only in the City of London but in a large area of London apart from the City, is highly desirable, but from a reading of the Bill it seems that it applies also to a restriction on office building in Scotland.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. F. V. Corfield): I should perhaps set the hon. Member's mind at rest. The Bill does not do anything of the sort. It gives power to the Scots, if they wish, to use planning powers, without threat of having to pay compensation, not to give planning permission which otherwise they would be forced to give. The Bill does not in any way lessen that control.

Mr. Lawson: Does it give the same power in Scotland, or does it apply only down here?

Mr. Corfield: It is entirely universal. The whole principle of the Bill is to enable local planning authorities, or the Minister, if the applications come to him, to confine increases to 10 per cent. of the floor space instead of 10 per cent. of the cube without incurring compensation if the authority does not give that permission. It is still open to a local planning authority, if there is an open site, to

allow a block of offices to be built and to give 200 per cent. or 300 per cent. if the authority thinks it suitable for that land. It merely means that the authority will not incur a bill if it uses ordinary planning criteria in deciding the issue.

Mr. Bence: Then I take it that the Bill does not in effect restrict the expansion of office building in London. It enables developers in the City and in Greater London to go on with office development. Planning permission can be given and there is no limitation at all on what can be done in the County of London. I had understood from what I heard in the debate that this was a Measure to restrict office building in London, but the hon. Gentleman now assures me that that is not so.
I hope that we shall have on the record a clear exposition of what is meant by applying the Bill to Scotland because, from what I have heard from my hon. Friends, there seems to be a danger that it will be restrictive on office development there.

6.13 p.m.

Mr. James MacColl: I am sure that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will be able to clear up the difficulties which arise in the minds of my hon. Friends representing Scottish constituencies. I very much sympathise with them. They have not had much help from the Scottish Office in discussion of this Bill. It is confusing to have a Bill which ostensibly applies to Scotland, but which is said to have a diametrically opposite effect in Scotland from what it purports to have in England. This is one of the subtleties of planning legislation. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to set the minds of my hon. Friends at rest on this.
In general, we all agree that the Bill is desirable. The criticism which has been made from both sides of the House is that it has appeared too late. There is no reason why we should not have had it years ago. We have had a whole series of Town and Country Planning Acts, going back to 1954. Some of them were long Acts, dealing in a comprehensive way with the whole problem, yet no one bothered about this matter. Now, at this late date, we have to have a special Measure to deal with it. It


does not merely mean that we have lost an opportunity for dealing with it earlier; it means that in the interim between the early stages when we might have tackled it and when this Bill comes into operation there has been and is all the extra amount of office building in London.
The problem is not just a question of marking time until something is done. The position has deteriorated substantially, as the White Paper issued the other day has shown. It seems that there is a very good case for tightening up the Bill. Although the Joint Parliamentary Secretary agreed that there did not seem much point in keeping the 10 per cent. tolerance, it seems that we should consider very carefully whether we ought not to accept the principle that there is not now any need at all for this particular tolerance in the Bill.
The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley) was pleasantly reminiscent about the origins of the 1947 Act. He told us something about what went on in Committee when that Bill was going through the House. If I may digress for a moment, it was interesting to learn that my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) was a member of that Committee. What is more remarkable is to think that all through those months —1 do not know how many—that the Bill was going through Committee I do not think that my hon. Friend spoke on it once. The thought of my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham sitting in a Committee and not speaking is something one can toy with as a very happy thought.

Mr. M. Stewart: Happy for whom?

Mr. MacColl: It is happy to think of what the Committee was avoiding in the way of ruthless analysis of the Bill's efforts.
I do not think that the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns, who is wrestling with his conscience about whether or not he could depart from the attitude he then adopted over this matter, need worry very much, for surely the fundamental difference between the present situation and the situation then is that the 1947 Act rested on the financial Section and development charges. The Third Schedule deals, not with permitting development—not

even with compensation—but the whole point of what people have to pay development charge.
It was a liberalising Measure brought in to stop people having unnecessarily to pay development charge When they were rebuilding substantially the same building as before. Once development charges had gone, the main point for keeping the Schedule had also gone. That is why I do not see why we need to bother now about the 10 per cent. tolerance. I think that this is one of the confusions which my hon. Friends representing Scottish constituencies have found. The Bill is not dealing with the question of what one can or cannot build, but, as the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said in an interjection, it deals with compensation. It is a Bill dealing with compensation and the circumstances in which it is to be paid and circumstances in which it is not to be paid.
The only effect of tightening the tolerance and of saying that it is not 'limited to 10 per cent. but to the present areas would be that if the planning authority said, "All right, for the purposes of improving your amenities you can build a little beyond this" there would be no difficulty. If the authority said, "No, because of the tremendously excessive office accommodation in London we do not want this development" and took that decision quite regardless of the tolerance and on the general planning ground that the authority did not want new office building or bigger office building, the effect, if we tightened the Bill, would be that the authority would not have to pay compensation in cases in which it would now have to pay. That is what the Bill is about.
I cannot understand the case for having this expansion of conditions under which compensation has to be paid as compared with the commonsense idea that one does not get compensation provided one has got something which is workable and which one can use. There is a point about which the Joint Parliamentary Secretary can help me—and I do not say this by way of criticism but perhaps from my misunderstanding of this complicated legislation.
The Minister was trying to explain—trying in the sense that he did not succeed in getting it into my thick head


—how it was that, although the Schedule starts with development for which there is no compensation, that means that compensation has to be paid. The Minister said, as I understood him, that the reason was that, if somebody was refused permission to rebuild with the 10 per cent. increase, he could serve a purchase notice on the planning authority and get his compensation by the indirect means of the purchase notice.
I did not quite understand that, because I thought that a purchase notice could be served only where there was no permission which enabled one to get reasonable beneficial use of the site. I do not understand why someone who builds something which is 10 per cent. smaller does not get beneficial use out of it, because, clearly, he has a nice little office block which can be let. I cannot understand how such a person can be entitled to compensation under existing law. I am not attempting to, argue the law. I am merely trying to get this cleared up, because I am extraordinarily confused.
A number of hon. Members have pointed out that in 1960, if the Government had been sufficiently tough, some legislation could have been got through to restrict office development by some kind of expansion or development certificates. As the Government are ingenious enough to be able to work out these proposals, I have no doubt that they could, if they had set their mind to it, have worked out a proposal for dealing with office expansion by means of development certificates. If they had done so, again, as with this Bill, we would have saved a great deal of time and we would have been able to stop development much more quickly. These three years have been wasted, and there is no excuse for it.
The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns asked what effect the Bill would have on rents. He disagreed with the Minister. The hon. Member thought that the effect of this must be to increase office rents. I do not know if he goes on from that point to argue that this ought therefore to be a means of rationing by price—in other words, that because rents were up there would, therefore, be a limitation to the use of office accom-

modation in London. I wonder whether that is so.
The hon. Member is an expert; he is professionally engaged in the property market. I know nothing about it. With prestige office building, the effect is almost the reverse. The higher the rents, the more likely people are to want to move into that area. If a mammoth insurance company has an enormous block which everybody knows is exceedingly expensive, its deadly rivals must also move in and have an even bigger block and an even more expensive site.
The fantastic nature of the whole operation in property speculation is that the effect probably is to make sites more attractive, because the price mechanism does not work in the sense that people are trying to get cheaper accommodation. If they want cheaper and efficient accommodation, they can move to.Kilmarnock. Because they have the fantastic idea that they must have an enormous building in the middle of London for the sake of prestige in order to keep up with the Joneses, the effect is to make the sites a more succulent prestige symbol, if that is an appropriate metaphor, and there is a consequential effect on rents.
We on this side do not like the present tolerance, and in Committee we shall try to get rid of it. We should certainly like to see something put in in the way of development certificates, as the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) suggested. I should have thought that it would be difficult to get it within the terms of the Bill. It is a pity that the right hon. Gentleman has drawn the Bill so narrowly. The Short Title is very narrow. It will require a good deal of drafting ingenuity to be able to apply the whole operation of controlling office development by means of manipulating the Third Schedule.
I hope that this is a precursor of a number of pieces of legislation which will come to us as part of this operation. The right hon. Gentleman told us that he had many ideas in his head about what he was going to do to keep down the office population in London and bring about some dispersal, but I was not clear whether he simply meant that the White Paper included many things which were not purely legislation, which


is true, or whether what he has in mind is that there will be other Bills coming before us later which will deal with other aspects of the problem. I hope that we shall have a very vigorous drive.
I repeat that it is too late. A tremendous amount of ground has been lost. There is already an almost insoluble traffic problem which the Bill will not solve. The Bill will merely prevent it getting worse. Obviously, for what it is worth, the Bill is a step in the right direction and, therefore, my hon. Friends and I will support its Second Reading.

6.26 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. F. V. Corfield): It is fair to say that all hon. Members have given a welcome to the Bill, even though some of them have been careful to qualify it and, as the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) said, give it only one and a half cheers. Nevertheless, it is a Bill for which the L.C.C., especially, has found a very substantial need over the last two or three years, particularly since the rebuilding following the war led to a replacement of pre-war office space and the problem of an increase over and above that has arisen.
The L.C.C. has found the provisions of the Third Schedule as at present drafted a very real handicap in using its planning powers and applying to planning decisions the ordinary planning criteria without having to have on its shoulder the threat of a claim for compensation, which in many cases it has felt has forced it to make a planning decision which was not justified by ordinary planning criteria.
My right hon. Friend mentioned the extreme case where a building could be approved in all its details and then, almost before the roof was on, a planning application could come forward for an extra 10 per cent., which, if refused, would give rise, or might give rise—there is some doubt in the law—to a claim for compensation. As my right hon. Friend said, that clearly makes nonsense of planning control.
I should have thought—this is perhaps sticking my neck out, for though I did at least serve in the Highland Division, I have never been a Scotsman—that where we have found a defect in the plan-

ning laws it would be advantageous to put the matter right throughout the whole country rather than purely on a selective basis. I must emphasise that this simply does not mean that throughout the whole country we are suddenly going to ask planning authorities to clamp down on any extension of a building, whether offices or otherwise, let alone to say that any replacement of a building cannot be larger than the building it replaces. It merely means that where it is desirable for planning purposes, planning authorities should be able to do so without the threat of compensation.
The hon. Member for Fulham began his speech by referring to the legal complexities, so as to get on the record exactly what the Bill does. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) drew particular attention to Clause 4 (1) as the only one, apart from the Schedule, which appears to be in plain English. I have some sympathy with this view, because there is no doubt that from glancing at the Bill, without a knowledge of planning law and the Schedule and its workings, which the Bill seeks to amend, it is not exactly evident what it is about; and it is still less evident that it has a connection with the control of offices in London. I apologise to hon. Members for this complication and have sympathy with the difficulties they have experienced.
In short, what it amounts to at the moment is that where there is to be an enlargement of a pre-1948 building, the Bill keeps the right to add 10 per cent. to the existing cube, but with the new limitation that there shall be not more than 10 per cent. increase in the floor space applied to a particular use. For a post-1948 building, the right to add I0 per cent. to the cube is lost; and the right to extend uses, which is covered by paragraph 7 of the original Third Schedule, is also lost.
For rebuilding, when there is a first rebuilding of the original building, within the definition, the right is kept to add 10 per cent. to the cube, but there is no right to add more than 10 per cent. of the floor space for each particular use in the building. Where there are mixed uses, the increase is pro rata. Where there is a second or subsequent rebuilding the floor space is not to exceed the amount in the building that is replaced by that particular operation. I hope that


that puts what the Bill does as clearly as it can be done.
The hon. Member for Fulham asked why the word "notional" was being used. The reason is—and the hon. Member has probably realised the answer during the course of the debate—simply that in many cases this is a "right" which cannot be exercised because all these "rights" are subject to planning control. These "rights" generally arise in calculating compensation where there can be no question of exercising the "right" because there has been an absence of planning permission. It is because of that absence that the compensation arises. I realise that that is somewhat complicated, but I think that it is necessary to qualify the word "right" otherwise it gives the impression that someone has an absolute right to carry out the work irrespective of obtaining planning permission.
The hon. Member for Fulham also referred to the difficulties that could arise, even under the Bill, where a building could be designed to the requirements of the local planning authority and thereafter be altered internally so that the floor space—and, therefore, the employment—could be increased. It is fair to say that it would not be difficult to devise conditions to be attached to the original planning permission to ensure that the floor space within should not be altered without further planning permission. Or, perhaps, the conditions could be made absolute. I cannot think that this would be a difficult operation from a legal point of view and I am advised that it could be done perfectly easily under the planning law as it stands.
The hon. Member for Fulham then referred to certain means by which the London County Council occasionally managed to get round this problem by making agreements—I think that they are normally made under Section 25 of the Act and are known as "Section 25 agreements"—in which the L.C.C. says, in effect, to the prospective developer, "No, but if you will agree to so-and-so, or such-and-such, then yes".
This is perfectly all right, I understand, where one gets a genuine voluntary agreement, but I am told that there is considerable doubt whether the statutory obligations of the planning Acts can

properly be used in law as in any sense a bargaining factor to get round the rights of the Third Schedule, for there is always the threat of the purchase notice. The hon. Member for Widnes (Mr MacColl) raised this point and, here again, I cannot but sympathise with him in not seeing the immediate connection between the two.
I have looked up the proceedings when the 1947 Act was going through the House in which a plea was made from the Conservative Opposition benches to put paragraph 1 of the Schedule on the same footing as the rest of the Schedule for the purpose of Section 20 compensation, which is compensation for refusal of planning permission included in the existing use in the Schedule. The answer given on that occasion was to the effect that the whole purpose of making this distinction was to make the applicant operate through the Section 19 purchase notice so that he would have to delay his claim for compensation until such time as his building was worn out and had to be replaced.
I suppose that it is always easier to be wise with hindsight than with foresight. Section 19 was constructed to prevent the applicant from demolishing the building, applying for planning permission, being refused and then saying, "It is the failure to get that permission that has deprived my land of its beneficial use" but there is this entry to the compensation world through the purchase notice procedure.
The hon. Member for Fulham then asked why the local planning authority or the Minister could not say to a developer, "You cannot develop to the extent of your original cube plus 10 per cent., but you can do so without the 10 per cent." regarding the erecting of a block of flats or offices. That arises under Section 20 (3) of the Act, which makes it clear that where a less valuable permission is granted the developer is entitled to compensation equal to the difference between the value with the full 10 per cent. tolerance and the value with the planning permission which has been granted. There is a qualification here worth remembering concerning Section 20 (5) and on this topic I disagree with the views of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis).
I am, of course, referring to the 1947 Act for the simple reason that I cannot


remember which Sections are the relevant ones in the consolidation Act. These relevant Sections are probably more familiar to some hon. Members than they are to me. However, Section 20 (5) of that Act provides that where the value of the land for these purposes is reduced by the imposition of a condition regarding either the design or the appearance of the building or the size or height of it or the number of buildings on the land, the Minister may, if it appears to him reasonable to do so in a particular case in relation to the local conditions, direct that such conditions should be disregarded in the assessment of compensation. I have paraphrased the Section, but that is the gist of the provision.
There has always been considerable doubt whether a reduction in height imposed by a planning decision would give the compensation to which we have been referring. The difficulty has been that no local planning authority has felt justified in taking the risk of relying on that sort of direction and being taken to the High Court; by which time, if the case went against it, the authority would have no alternative but to pay the full compensation—usually very heavy—which, in its view, would not be worth the slight saving which it had been enabled to effect.
Having translated the Bill thus far—as the hon. Member for Fulham said earlier—I will now refer to certain other suggestions made about the Location of Offices Bureau. This matter was raised by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent). I would expect that one of the first operations of this Bureau would be to find out the answers to the sort of questions which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East raised. They are questions as to how many of these firms which allege that they have to be in London do, in fact, have to be in the middle and the sort of reasons which impel people to insist upon having their offices in what must be one of the most expensive parts of the world.
Another objective of the Bureau will undoubtedly be to obtain the maximum information about the alternatives and the sort of social or economic information which is so important to office owners or employers who are contemplating a move out. It would be infor-

mation about the housing position in the area, the employment position, the local authorities concerned with planning, and all those sorts of things as well as economic comparisons of rents and rates in the area.
I am told that it is calculated that the rents in Central London are about three times the rents in Croydon. I agree with the hon. Member for Fulham that it is highly desirable that we should look beyond the green belt, as my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) also said, to other towns, such as Folkestone, Brighton, Reading and Guildford. This, indeed, will be a function of the Location of Offices Bureau.
I hope that it will be appreciated that, nevertheless, the peripheral areas of London, the Croydons, can also play their part in providing offices away from the centre. Here again, the hon. Member for Fulham asked whether they were attracting people in across the green belt or out from the centre. Frankly, this is something which we do not yet know, but this operation will add to our knowledge.
We have looked at the French experiments and so far we do not think that they are immensely effective. The tax in London would probably have to be even higher than it is in Paris, where it is about 30s. a sq. ft. In London, it is clear that the enormous difference between costs in Central London and outside is not a sufficient deterrent up to date. Therefore, it might have to be a considerable tax to be effective. The hon. Member for Widnes took the contrary view that the higher one puts the honey the more the bees run round the pot. I should not like to pronounce on that until I had seen it happen and had had the advantage of hindsight rather than foresight. However that may be, I do not think it is as effective a weapon as it is often thought to be.
I should like to welcome the planning conference, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford mentioned, as a useful step towards co-ordination of the planning problems of the Greater London metropolitan area. When we have our regional study in a more advanced stage, the initiative will still lie with the local planning authorities and it is clearly of advantage if we have the maximum co-operation with them.
Several hon. Members, and particularly the hon. Member for Orpington and my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet, raised the whole question of industrial development certificates as applied to offices. I do not want to bore the House by referring to the paragraphs in the White Paper, but there are several considerations to be borne in mind. Here, I have refreshed my memory by looking up some of the proceedings on the 1947 Bill as it then was. It is clear that the certificates were put in that Bill specifically to bring in the Board of Trade as the Ministry mainly responsible for the distribution of industry and to buttress its powers under the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945. This emphasises to some extent the difference between the two problems with which we are dealing.
It is clear that in most cases a manufacturing industry occupies a factory which is more or less tailor-made. Even if it moves into an existing factory or one provided by the Government it soon moves in equipment which adapts the factory for its own use and it moves in generally with the intention of staying there for a relatively long time. But where there is office user we are likely to have a large number of different firms, and, indeed, different individuals in the same office block. There are usually a large number of offices occupied by professional people and it would be difficult for the Board of Trade to pronounce on whether they should be in the centre of London or outside.
There is also a tendency to let these office blocks on pretty long leases, of 60 years or 90 years and more. It would be almost impossible to keep control of successive occupiers of premises by a sort of office certificate procedure, when the certificate would really be a certificate of individuals in the office rather than a certificate of the actual building. There are much greater difficulties in this than are suspected by those who take the parallel of the I.D.C. system and try to apply it to offices.
Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet raised a number of points which, I feel, are more of an administrative than a statutory nature. I certainly do not think that the Bill is a vehicle for grants, or anything of that sort. I would feel that the sort of problems which my hon. Friend has in mind

were very much within the sphere of the Location of Offices Bureau and I assure him that it is not our intention to confine the draw-off of offices from Central London merely to the periphery of the built-up area.
I hope that I have answered most of the questions put in the debate. We do not pretend for one moment that the Bill is a major sledgehammer which would cure the whole problem of offices, but it is part of an overall policy designed to help and to strengthen the planning machine and to make it more effective in controlling offices and other buildings. I should point out to my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley) that the 10 per cent. tolerance does not bear hardly on the house owner, for the alternative of a maximum of 1,750 sq. ft. will protect him in most cases. Although the Bill is not a complete weapon, we think that it is a valuable and essential weapon in the armoury which will have to be used to solve our planning problems in the next decade.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order, No. 38 (Committal of Bills).

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING [MONEY]

[Queen's Recommendation Signified]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).

[Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

Resolved,
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision with respect to development comprised in Schedule 3 to the Town and Country Planning Act 1962 and Schedule 3 to the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1947, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable Po any such provision of the said Act of the present Session in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under any enactment other than that Act on account of of in consequence of expenditure incurred by local authorities in the payment of compensation for the revocation or modification of planning permission or of other planning decisions which are treated for the purposes of compensation as the revocation or modification of such permission.—[Sir K. Joseph.]

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow.

PRISON COMMISSIONERS (DISSOLUTION)

6.50 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Henry Brooke): I beg to move,
That the Prison Commissioners Dissolution Order 1963, a draft of which was laid before this House on 5th February, be approved.
I fear that we may have our debate interrupted in a few minutes, Mr. Speaker, but I hope that I shall be able to deploy part of the case before seven o'clock, and maybe the House will forgive me if I have to complete my speech when we resume the debate.
There is a vast deal needing to be done in our prisons, and one of the reasons why I move this Order is that I not only want to be responsible for helping to get it done, but to be seen to be responsible. The key to our whole democratic system is that Ministers are directly responsible to Parliament for all that is done by their Departments and under their auspices, and I am against blurring that responsibility, as it is blurred by the existence of separate statutory agencies which look independent, but are not independent really.
There is a vast deal to be done, for various reasons. First of all, crime is 50 per cent. higher than it was in 1956; that was when the number of prisoners in detention fell to the lowest point in recent years. The House may like a few figures in order to get the situation into perspective. There were, roughly, 11,000 people in detention in 1938. In 1952, there were between 23,000 and 24,000. The number fell to 20,000 in 1956, and there are over 30,000 now. That is why I have said that this crime wave has increased the figures by 50 per cent.
We cannot build more prisons as fast as more people during a crime wave commit crimes. This means, among other things, that w3 still have to keep in use, unavoidably, a number of very old prisons that are quite out of date by modern penal standards. I visited a prison the other day where one of the blocks dated from 1790. The governor of the prison astonished me with the remark that this was the most popular block to be in, because the old

cells, with their thick walls, were regarded as the cosiest in the prison.
Our standards are not always the same as the prisoners'. I want to bring to an end as soon as I possibly can prisoners sleeping three in a cell, yet there axe a great many prisoners who, in fact, would choose that in preference to the loneliness of being locked up by themselves. Another aim is to get as many prisoners as possible doing a full working week of work. Until we achieve that, we are not really fulfilling our declared purpose of fitting men to stand on their own feet when they come out of prison.
That depends partly on finding room to build new workshops—because, of course, in the old days most of the prisoners used to do dreary and monotonous work in their cells—and partly on building up the strength of the prison officer service, because, until there are enough prison officers to work a shift, we cannot have the prisoners in that prison unlocked for long enough to give them their exercise and meals, and a full working day, too. We have built up the number of men prison officers from 4,200 to over 6,000 since 1956. I am glad to say that we now have a second training school, and that we passed nearly 800 officers into the service last year compared with under 350 the year before. But we still want more—many more. I could say a great deal about what is being done and about what I want to do, but perhaps what I have said will serve to give the background of this Order.
The matters of which I have spoken are the important matters. The Order itself is simply concerned with machinery, but I believe that the time has come to modernise statutory arrangements which date from as far back as 1877. That is what the Order does. My predecessor secured the assent of Parliament to the principle of it in the Criminal Justice Act of 1961, and this Order is made in accordance with that Act.
If the Prison Commission did not exist as a separate statutory body I cannot believe that we would now create a distinct agency organisation of that kind to run the prisons. It would be contrary to all modern thought. How to save people from becoming criminals, how to treat them in prison if they do become criminals, how to help


them to settle down to a good and useful life when they come out of prison —we now regard those as three facets of one problem. We would never now dream of setting up a statutory body to look after the second of those aspects quite separately from all that is being done on the first and third. To my mind, getting rid of that anomaly, which stems from legislation passed 86 years ago, constitutes the main necessity for this Order.
Under the Order, what is now the Prison Commission will become the prison department of the Home Office—alongside the children's department, with its concern for juvenile delinquency, and the probation division, and so on. That must be right. The handling of offenders does not begin and end in prison. The more we can look on the problem of offenders and offences as a whole, the more likely we are to be able to tackle it.
I attach far more importance to that angle than to the financial savings or tidying up we shall achieve by the Order. There should be some savings, but they will not be great. For instance, we have at present to maintain a separate finance division and a separate establishment division for the Prison Commission, quite distinct from the finance division and establishment division of the Home Office, whereas all the work for both would be done better or at less cost in combination.
The division between the Prison Commission and the Home Office is an unreal one in these days. Of course, the Commission has extremely important work to do—so has the children's department of the Home Office, so has the probation

division, so has the criminal division. There is already liaison between them, but when this Order takes effect and the Commission becomes the Prison Department of the Home Office the relationship between them will grow still closer. Surely, it is right that it should.
The Prison Commissioners and their staffs are civil servants. They are not outside the Civil Service as, I believe, some people imagine. The Order makes no difference whatever to anybody's pay, pension rights or conditions of service. Neither will it make any difference at all to my constitutional responsibilities as Home Secretary. I am now responsible in exactly the same degree for the work done by the Commission and for the work done by the Home Office. The Prison Commissioners, just like officials in the Home Office, are under my direction generally and in specific matters. Their proposals come to me through the Permanent Under-Secretary of State and, constitutionally, it is anomalous and misleading that the Commission should appear to be a separate and independent body.
I should like to quote from the 1937 Report of the Departmental Committee on Scottish Administration. That was the Report that resulted in a similar amalgamation of the Prisons Department of Scotland with the Scottish Home Department. It states—

It being Seven o'clock, and there being Private Business set down by The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, under Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking Private Business), further Proceeding stood postponed.

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: feel that I should, first, apologise to the Home Secretary for interrupting the speech that he was in the course of making on prisons. It promises to be most interesting and likely to lead to a very interesting debate. I am sure that he will be happy to know that the intervention on this Private Bill is not likely to take very long.
The House will remember that in previous years we have had occasion in this House to raise various points when the City of London (Various Powers) Bill has come up for discussion. On the last occasion, my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds), my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. A. Evans) and myself were particularly anxious that in any subsequent City of London (Various Powers) Bill the City Corporation should seek power to put an end to the Caledonian Market and the abattoir associated with it which for a long time past have prevented the development of a very large area in Islington for housing, open spaces and educational purposes.
We are happy to find that in this year's City of London (Various Powers) Bill the promise given last year has been implemented and that under the Bill as deposited the market will be dismarketed and the abattoir will be removed.
I was prompted to table a Motion for an Instruction to the Committee, in Clause 5, page 4, line 33, to leave out "three years" and insert "one year", because the Bill in its original form contemplated that the Minister might have power to postpone for a further period of three years the date on which this market would finally be closed and this valuable space in the centre of Islington would become available for housing purposes.
Since I tabled the Motion. I have had discussions, and so have my hon. Friends, with the authorities of the City Corporation and as a result of that I understand that an Amendment is to be moved in

Committee which will at least have this effect: it will mean that before the Minister is able to exercise any power to make an order to postpone the vacation of the site for three years he will have to give public notice and there will have to be a public inquiry if there is any objection. Therefore, there is every reason to hope that the effective date for the disappearance of the market and the development of the site may be 1st January, 1964 and, if not, it may not be very much later than that.
I am sure that the House would be glad to know that, even if an order is made, large parts of the site will become available early. I understand that the London County Council will already be able to make progress with its plan for the development of this site, and I am hoping that in conjunction with the Islington Borough Council it will thereby be able to make at an early date provision for rehousing large numbers of Islington's residents who are badly in need of housing accommodation.
In view of the assurance that has been given and having made this explanation, which I understand will be confirmed, it is not my intention, after the Second Reading of the Bill, to move my Motion.

7.5 p.m.

Sir Hugh Linstead: Having heard the speech of the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) and his indication that he does not propose to proceed with the Instruction to the Commine, my remarks can be extremely brief. I think, however, that I should underline one point that did not emerge very clearly from the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the House.
The hon. Member was evidently expecting that by January, 1964, or very shortly afterwards, the abattoir would be closed and the market would be handed over to the London County Council for housing, schools and open spaces. That event will happen only if there is agreement among the users of the abattoir that they no longer wish to have an abattoir in that part of London, and they will be able to make alternative arrangements.
If representations are made and agreement is reached among the users of the abattoir and the traders ancillary to their work that they wish to continue the


slaughtering of cattle in that part of London, an arrangemnt has been made between the London County Council and the Corporation for a new abattoir to be constructed on a railway site, partly above sidings, within a quarter of a mile of the present site.
That construction is bound to take considerably more than the six months which is referred to in the Bill, or the extra year which would have been permitted if the Instruction had been carried by the House. That is why I think that it is important that the power given to the Minister to extend the period from 1st January, 1964, to 1st January, 1967, should remain in the Bill.
I hope that the hon. Member for Islington, East is not under a misapprehension, because, in fact, the Bill will provide for the continuation of the present state of affairs for at least three years if it is the desire of the traders that a new abattoir should be constructed.

Mr. Fletcher: Will the hon. Member clarify one point? I understand that, even if an order were to be made subsequently by the Minister, that would affect only the part of the site occupied by the abattoir. It would not prevent the London County Council from proceeding with its preliminary plan for the general development of that part of the site not occupied by the abattoir.

Sir H. Linstead: That is my understanding, too, because under the Bill the Minister has power to apply the order to parts of the site and, therefore, if he desired to do so he could immediately place parts of the site at the disposal of the London County Council, and the Council could then develop those or proceed with construction, even if the abattoir site were still used as an abattoir until a new one had been constructed. I think that probably the hon. Gentleman and myself are putting the same interpretation on the situation.
My only other comment is that I think this is an excellent example of the sort of improvement within London which can be effected by the Corporation and the County, and, I gather, the Borough of Islington, all getting together to find a far better use for one of the most valuable sites in London, which at present is under-used and which is very badly

needed for the people of the neighbourhood. It will cost the London County Council at least £1½ million if it has to rebuild the abattoir, and cost the Corporation at least a £250,000 as its contribution. Sums of that size, I think, are very well spent if the result will be a far more worthwhile user of this old Caledonian Market site.
I am very glad to hear that the hon. Member for Islington, East proposes to withdraw his Motion for the Instruction, and I hope that the Bill will go through without any reservations attached to it.

7.9 p.m.

Mr. Albert Evans: I agree with the hon. Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) that there will be a delay of up to three years in the release of the abattoir for redevelopment. He made the point that although the release date for the abattoir might have to be delayed up to 1st January, 1967, nevertheless other parts of the site will be released for redevelopment before 1st January, 1967. I think that we are all agreed about that. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) can now be assured that some part of the site, that part used for the purposes of the abattoir, is likely to be released before 1st January, 1967.
Neither I nor, I think, my hon. Friends have any desire to delay the Bill in the least. I did myself put down a Motion for an Instruction to the Committee in this matter, and I am happy to say that the promoters of the Bill were most co-operative. In the consultations I had with them, they considered the point I made in my Motion and they were anxious to meet it. In fact, they did meet it and, as we know, they intend to ask the Committee to reframe the Bill so that parts of the site can be released before 1967.
We wish the Bill to go through without delay because we in the Borough of Islington are very concerned that some, if not all, of the site should be readily available quite soon.
I conclude by thanking the promoters for their co-operative approach as a result of my Motion for an Instruction. They have done everything in their power to speed the transfer of the land from their ownership to the ownership of the local authorities which will do


the developing. My hon. Friend has said that he does not intend to press his Motion for an Instruction tonight, and I hope that the Bill will speedily pass through the Select Committee.

7.12 p.m.

Mr. G. W. Reynolds: These 30 acres of land have probably had more minutes per acre devoted to them in this Chamber during the past few years than any other piece of land in the country. Nevertheless, from the point of view of the people of Islington, that time has been well spent.
Like my hon. Friends who represent other parts of Islington, the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) and the Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. A. Evans), I thank the promoters of the Bill for agreeing to the alteration which they will put before the Committee to meet, so far as they can be met, the views which we hold about the use of this land in the very near future. It seems clear that the financial and other arrangements to be made between the City Corporation and the London County Council are reasonable to both sides.
The argument about the use of the site has gone on, to my knowledge, for four and a half years. Indeed, it was dragging on before I became a Member of the House. I hope that every effort will now be made by all the authorities concerned to get speedy development of the site. As the hon. Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) has reminded us, there is to be an Amendment which will ensure that, if necessary, the abattoir itself will continue in use for up to three years. Like my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Putney, however, I believe that there are parts of the site which the Minister, when he draws up any necessary order, will be able to make available for development in the very near future. It is with the development of these particular parts that I am primarily concerned.
I hope that the London County Council, although it may not be with us much longer, will quickly draw up the outline plan for the development of the site as a whole, and that the Islington Borough Council will have land made available to it so that it can build property there for tenants from Islington. I want the benefit of these 30 acres to

go to the people of Islington and that part of north-east London where housing is now so bad.
There has been published today the London County Council's report on information gained in the 1961 census. I have not yet had an opportunity to read it, but I am quite certain that it will show, as the 1951 census did, that that part of north-east London is one of the worst-housed parts of London. I hope that successful efforts will be made by the Islington Borough Council to ensure that it secures its fair share of the development undertaken on the site. The sooner work can be started, the better for all concerned.
I add my thanks to the City Corporation, the promoters of the Bill, for the Amendment to which they have agreed, and I repeat the hope that development will proceed very quickly indeed.

7.15 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. F. V. Corfield): I assure the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) and his hon. Friends, and my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead), that my right hon. Friend is as anxious as anyone to see this land better used in the interests of housing and ancillary uses in this part of London. This is why the sponsors have cast the duty on him rather than on the Minister of Agriculture who, as the House knows, is usually responsible for legislation dealing with markets. I can confirm that any postponement which would be involved in the exercise by my right hon. Friend of this power would be confined to the abattoir and the land used in immediate connection therewith. I understand that this amounts to about seven acres out of a total of just over 31 acres.
The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) mentioned that the sponsors are prepared to amend the Bill by a provision which would require my right hon. Friend to hold an inquiry if there were any objection. This has the additional advantage which I think he will appreciate, that the issue will have to be brought forward very quickly, because a postponement order has to be made before 1st January, 1964. This would mean that, leaving time for the inquiry procedure and the passage of the Bill through the House, the move would have


to be made in the very near future. People are not likely to be left in doubt for any great time.
I hope that the House will agree that, so long as there is a real prospect—as I understand there is—of an agreed solution being found for the abattoir problem, it is sensible to allow the traders and the City time to negotiate so that the transition period can be as short and as easy as possible. I hope that the hon. Member for Islington, East will feel that this is a satisfactory solution.

Mr. Fletcher: I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that, since the order has to be made not later than 1st January next, and since there has to be time for a public inquiry, the machinery must be put in motion by the traders almost within the next two or three months if there is to be any chance of an order being made.

Mr. Corfield: Yes, almost as soon as the Bill receives the Royal Assent. The hon. Gentleman knows that Private Bills go through rather faster than some Public Bills. There will, no doubt, be time to do it, but there will be no hanging about. I trust that this will be regarded as a satisfactory arrangement.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed.

PRISON COMMISSIONERS (DISSOLUTION)

Postponed Proceeding on Motion, That the Prison Commissioners Dissolution Order, 1963, a draft of which was laid before this House on 5th February, be approved, resumed.

7.18 p.m.

Mr. Brooke: When our proceedings were interrupted for a short time, I was about to quote from the Report of a Departmental Committee on Scottish Administration for the year 1937. It was that Report which preceded a similar amalgamation of the Prison Department of Scotland with the Scottish Home Department. What is said is closely relevant to our discussions now. This is the passage:
It is a constitutional principle that a Department and its Minister are indistinguish-

able, but a Department incorporated and established by statute to carry out specified functions in the name of the Department, although acting under the control and direction of the Minister, is necessarily regarded as a separate entity. We consider that this is an anomaly which should be rectified. The responsibility of a Minister to Parliament is inconsistent with any measure of independence (even if only apparent) in any Department for which he speaks.
I seldom find myself arguing that we can learn from the Scots, but I believe that those words are profoundly true. My information is that the amalgamation worked out perfectly well in the case of Scotland.
Here in England the Prison Commission and the Home Office have already come as close together as the statutory bar in 1877 Act will allow. The headquarters staff of the Commission has long been strengthened by the secondment of administrative staff from the Home Office. Several of the specialist branches of the Home Office—for instance, the legal advisers' branch—already serve the Prison Commission as well. The chief architect's branch of the Home Office and the directorate of works of the Prison Commission have been combined under the former director of works of the Prison Commission. But we cannot achieve complete and efficient integration until the last barriers are removed by the making of this Order.
The House will wish me to explain how things will go on when the Order takes effect. There are various elements within the staff of the Prison Commission. There is the professional prison service, from the prison officers up through the governor grades to the senior professional officers at headquarters. In addition, there are members of particular professions—doctors, psychologists, architects, and so on—with their own professional status and professional hierarchies. There are also members of the ordinary administrative, executive and clerical grades of the Civil Service who work either in prisons or at headquarters.
Administrative grade officers have never been recruited direct to the Prison Commission they are all seconded from the Home Office. That includes the Chairman, Deputy Chairman and Secretary of the Prison Commission and the establishment officer. The first three —that is, the Chairman, the Deputy Chairman and the Secretary—are Prison


Commissioners. The other two Prison Commissioners are the Chief Director and the Director of Borstal Administration. Those two posts, along with the Director of Prison Administration, who is not a Prison Commissioner but is a member of the Prisons Board, are the top posts of the professional prison service. There are also nine assistant commissioners all of whom are members of the prison service. The other professional staff have their own chief posts—the director of medical services, the chief psychologist, the director of works and so on.
I have heard it suggested that integration threatens a take-over by administrative and executive civil servants of the functions of the trained staff of the prison service. That is completely untrue. The position and the work of the professional prison service, from the Commissioners who have been trained in the prison service, through to the prison officers, will be wholly unaffected by this Order. Their conditions of service and prospects of promotion will not be altered in any way. The more men of ability I see working their way up in the prison service and showing the qualifications necessary to take the highest posts in it, the happier I shall be. There will be just as many posts for them to take in future as at present—maybe more.
Another fear which I have come across is that this Order will lead to a more rapid turnover of senior administrative staff. That is certainly not my idea. I have no intention of allowing the close personal links between headquarters and the prison service, or, as someone suggested, between headquarters and all those voluntary workers who give splendid service to the country on boards of visitors, or visiting committees or as prison visitors or in after-care work, to get broken. Therefore, that, also, is a false fear.
I have already said that the senior posts in the professional prison service will not be affected. There will be the same continuity and the same personal contact. I have said that the administrative officers have always been seconded from the Home Office. Some of them, like Sir Lionel Fox, have served for many years; others have served for shorter periods. There is no reason why

this Order should bring any change in that situation.
There is a great deal to learn for anyone appointed to a department responsible for the organisation of the prison service, and there is need for full confidence between those actually working in the prisons and those working at headquarters. I shall do everything in my power to sustain that. I feel sure that we shall produce as many men dedicated to the improvement of prisons and of prison treatment in future as we have done in the past, and I assure the House that their opportunities of service will be as great.
In case hon. Members may be wondering about the question of ranks, may I point out that the three Commissioners who are now seconded from the Home Office—that is, the Chairman, Deputy Chairman and Secretary—when they cease to be called Commissioners, will retain their present ranks in the Civil Service of Assistant Under-Secretary of State and Assistant Secretary respectively. They will continue with their work in the new prison department in the same way that they were working in the Prison Commission.
The other two Commissioners—the professional Commissioners, if I may so call them—namely, the Chief Director and the Director of Borstal Administration, will retain the same titles as well as the same jobs. That also applies to the Director of Prison Administration. The present Assistant Commissioners will become Assistant Directors, but their status and responsibilities will remain exactly the same. The Prisons Board will continue to meet in the present way. In case hon. Members are not familiar with the term, the Prisons Board is a body of senior administrative and specialist officers of the Prison Commission which meets to discuss general questions of policy. The Board will have just as important part as ever in the administration of the prison service.
Finally, there seems to be some suspicion that the Home Secretary wilt find it simpler to forget about prisoners and prisons if the prison service becomes part of the Home Office. I should have thought that exactly the opposite would have been the result, because under the Order it becomes plainer than ever that


the responsibility for it is directly on him. I cannot believe that any Home Secretary —I speak very seriously now—will forget the responsibility which he has for about 11,000 men and women in the prison service and more than 30,000 human beings in detention. The House should not forget it either, for this is a responsibility which the whole country shares.
I am not content by any means with everything concerning our prisons, particularly the closed local prisons, for the reasons which I have given, although I hope and think that the House will agree that wonderful work is being done in prisons, and I should like the public to know much more about it. I welcome the responsible articles about prison conditions like some which have appeared in the Press recently and during the last few days. I should like more hon. Members to go to prisons—[Laughter.] As visitors, I mean. I should be glad to arrange it. I had never been to a prison before I became Home Secretary. I have held office as Home Secretary for eight months, in which time I have visited eight prisons, borstals and remand and detention centres, and I intend to visit many more. Thirty out of the 90 establishments which come under the Prison Commissioners have been visited during the past year by one or the other of the Home Office Ministers, including my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke), who did such excellent work while he was at the Home Office.
It is because I believe that the continuing improvement of our prisons is such an outstandingly important part of the functions of the Home Office and of the duties of the Home Secretary that I want to see his responsibility for it made perfectly clear and correct. I ask the House to approve the Order because I know that it is a sensible and forward step.

7.31 p.m.

Miss Alice Bacon: One thing which I want to make clear at the beginning of my speech is that we on this side of the House do not regard this as a party political issue. For that reason, we have tonight taken off our official Whips and if there is a vote at the end of the debate, my right hon. and hon. Friends

will be free to vote in whichever Lobby they wish. I trust that the same freedom will be afforded to hon. Members opposite, because I know that there is a difference of opinion about the Order on the Government side of the House.
Before discussing the Order itself, I should like to say a few words about the way in which the subject has been brought before the House. This is an important issue and one in which there has been great interest. My opinion is that it would have been much better to have had a Bill dealing with this whole subject which we could have discussed properly and which we could have amended in Committee.
Instead, this proposal was included as a rather incongruous part of the Criminal Justice Act, 1961, which dealt chiefly with the treatment of offenders under the age of 21. Tucked away in Section 23 of that Act was the proposal to give the Home Secretary power to bring in an Order in Council to absorb the Prison Commissioners within the Home Office. Now, we have before us an Order which we must either approve or disapprove. We must either take it or leave it.
It is only because hon. Members on both sides objected that we are having adequate time to debate this proposal. Indeed, in spite of the assurances given by the previous Home Secretary, now the First Secretary of State, it was originally suggested that we should start to debate this important matter at about 10 or 11 o'clock at night.
As the Home Secretary has said, the Order means that the Commission as it was set up in 1877 will no longer exist. I should like to bring to the attention of the Home Secretary the fact that most informed opinion is against him in this matter. The subject has been debated in another place and I have read with great interest the debate which took place there. While it is true that at the end of the day the Government had a decided majority, it is significant that apart from the Minister of State, Home Office, and the Lord Chancellor, every speech which was made in another place, from both sides of that House, was against the Order.
All the informed Press is against the Order. I will not weary the House with quotations but merely say that over the


last year or two, the Lancet, the Observer, The Times on several occasions and the Guardian have all been against the Order. Within the last two or three weeks, there have been several leading articles in different newspapers. We have had the Economist and, quite recently, the Sunday Telegraph. The Times had a long leader with the heading, "A Step Backward" only about a fortnight ago. Today, The Times has another leader, again asking the Home Secretary whether, even at this late hour, he will not lay aside the Order.
There has also been considerable correspondence in The Times, including a letter some time ago from Sir Harold Scott, a former Chairman of the Prison Commission, who was very much against the Order being put into effect. I will not, however, weary the House with quoting all these various leaders in the Press, but they have been many and they have been strong in their language.
This is not the first time that this proposal has come before the House of Commons. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), when Home Secretary, tried to bring in a similar proposal in the Criminal Justice Bill of 1948, but so great was the outcry on that occasion that my right hon. Friend decided to withdraw the proposal and, indeed, he was put in the position of voting against his own proposal.
At that time, my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Sir G. Benson), who is waiting to speak this evening and who, I understand, has changed his mind somewhat in the last few years, made a speech in which he said that he regarded the Clause in question as thoroughly obnoxious and that he saw no reason whatever for abolishing the Prison Commission. He also said that he did not know anybody interested in penal reform who did not regard the Clause with a great deal of misgiving. Therefore, whenever this matter has come before us, there has been strong criticism from both sides.
During the passage of the 1960 Criminal Justice Bill, one Clause of which gave effect to tonight's proposal, we had a good debate in Committee and we also had a considerable debate late at night on Report. On 12th April, 1961, with the exception of those who spoke from the Government Front Bench, everybody spoke against this proposal, including the

hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers), the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), the hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) and, rather surprisingly, the present Attorney-General, who said that he had grave misgivings about this whole proposal.
On that occasion, the hon. and learned Gentleman said:
There is a world of difference between people who are part of the headquarters, as it were, exercising a subordinate responsibility under the Home Secretary, and a person who has a separate responsibility even though it is subject to the direction of the Home Secretary.
He went on to say that he hoped that his right hon. Friend the then Home Secretary would be able to reassure the House
that we are nod losing something by abolishing the Prison Commissioners, in the sense that we are losing an independently exercised responsibility."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th April, 1961; Vol. 638, c. 389.]
I have reread the debates we had on the Criminal Justice Act and the debates in another place recently. I have listened to the Home Secretary's speech tonight. But still I am not quite clear just what we are doing and why we are taking this step. The right hon. Gentleman told us what the Order does not do. He did not tell us very much about what it will do and about the advantages which will accrue if it is passed. Looking through these debates, it seems that the Government say at one time that this proposal will make no difference and at another time that there are to he great changes. We still do not know exactly what the right hon. Gentleman envisages.
There is no point in arguing whether or not the Prison Commissioners have been independent in the past. Of course, they have not been, and I do not think that anybody would argue that they have, because we all know that in the last resort the prisons are the responsibility of the Home Secretary. But in this respect it is true to say that there has been a unique arrangement whereby the Prison Commissioners, although not an independent body, have had a separate identity, and I believe that this separate identity has been beneficial to the prison service as a whole and that much would be lost by sinking it as an anonymous part of the Home Office.
We have been told that this is administrative. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman said that this is only a matter of machinery and, at great length, he talked about promotion and interchange within the Home Office and between the prison service and the Home Office itself. It is true that the top three people in the prison service are from the Civil Service, but there is a fear that many more of the assistant commissioners will be drawn from the Civil Service and not go through the avenues of the prison service.
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman did not repeat what the Minister of State said in another place. The Minister of State overstated the case by saying that in future it would be possible for a prison officer working in any prison in the country to rise to the rank of Under-Secretary at the Home Office, for that really was quite a lot of nonsense.
It is sometimes argued that it is a good thing—I am sure that it is so— for outsiders to help to run the prison service, but we must make sure that those who have had a good deal of experience in prisons get their chance to go higher up in the service. As I have said, there is the fear that many more civil servants with very little knowledge of prisons will be put in to help run the prison service.
It has been said that this is a matter of economy, although the right hon. Gentleman did not use that argument tonight. The only case put forward for this is that there would be co-ordination between the prison department and other departments of the Home Office. The right hon. Gentleman said that he would be better able to co-ordinate the departments which look after the after-care of prisoners with the prisoners themselves, and also co-ordinate the prison service with other services concerned with delinquency, particularly juvenile delinquency.
If the right hon. Gentleman is arguing that the prison service will be better for being treated in the same way in the Home Office as after-care is treated, and as the children's department has been run, that is not a very good recommendation for transferring the functions of the Prison Commission into the Home Office, for everybody who knows anything at

all about after-care knows that it is in a very sad state. If this has been the responsibility of the Home Secretary, it leaves a great deal to be desired. The right hon. Gentleman said that we must ensure co-ordination in showing prisoners how they could settle down to a good and useful life.

Sir Godfrey Nicholson: The hon. Lady also embraced the children's department in her criticism.

Miss Bacon: I am coming to that in a moment.
After-care is one of the most disgraceful parts of our care of prisoners today. It is very unsatisfactory. It has been said, and the right hon. Gentleman repeated, that we shall be able to co-ordinate the work which is now being done by the Prison Commission with other work being done for juvenile delinquency, and connect up the work of the Commission with the approved schools. That fills me with horror.
I believe that there is a very good case for approved schools being transferred to the Ministry of Education, but, so long as the responsibility for approved schools remains with the Home Office, then I hope that it stays with the children's department, because, while I have often criticised that department—and will do so again in a few minutes —and want to see it improved, it would be very wrong to link the work of approved schools, which are supposed to be educational, with the criminal establishment inside the Home Office. I rope that we shall not see the schools regarded as criminal establishments. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will make that clear. Rather than absorbing the Prison Commission into the Home Office, there is more to be said for setting up a youth commission on similar lines to the Prison Commission.
I want now to come to the point on which the hon. Member for Farnham (Sir G. Nicholson) interrupted. Anyone who sat through the proceedings on the Criminal Justice Act will know that we had a great deal of difficulty in finding out exactly what was happining in the children's department. Year by year, the Prison Commission has given a first-class report and we have had no difficulty whatever in knowing exactly what it was doing because the reports have been full and detailed.
But there was no report from the children's department of the Home Office between 1955 and 1961, and we had to fight hard in Committee on the Criminal Justice Act for an Amendment ensuring that we would in future have a report from the department every three years. Indeed, we tried to get an annual report but had to compromise on three years.
Thus, for the right hon. Gentleman to say that he would like the Prison Commission to be completely absorbed into the Home Office in order that it can be dealt with in the same way as the children's department does not commend this proposal at all, because we have not had, over the years, the full information from the children's department that we would like to have.
The Prison Commission has built up a reputation and great confidence. As the right hon. Gentleman said, there is a good deal wrong with our prisons, and, like him, I have visited a great many over the last two or three years. One could speak for half an hour or an hour about things that are wrong with our prisons, and I agree with him about the scandal of having three prisoners in a cell, although I also believe that the prisoners themselves do not seem to object to this very much. The worst feature of having three in a cell is not the sleeping arrangement but the fact that that number means that the cells are overcrowded in the daytime and the prisoners cannot do a useful day's work. Another reason why our prisons are full today is that there are many young people there who ought to be in remand centres, when we get remand centres built by the Government. Although we can all say what is wrong with the prison service, a great deal of good has been done by the Prison Commissioners over the years. They have experimented and there have been progressive ventures—open prisons, training prisons, group counselling and the hostel system. These things would have been much more difficult to accomplish without the Prison Commissioners having an identity of their own.
Prison reform is not popular—let us face it—except with a small section of the community. Although it is many years since the House accepted that the prisoner goes to prison not for punishment but as punishment, and that a man should come out of prison a better man, physically and morally, than when he

went in, the general public has still not accepted it. When so much money is needed for schools and hospitals and houses, it is never easy for the Government to embark on prison building. It is very difficult for any Government in these circumstances, but that fact is one more reason for keeping a separate, identifiable body which, although not independent of the Government, seems to be so. Such a separate, identifiable body can probably go ahead with these things better than a Government Department in the climate of public opinion which we so often experience.
There are many people inside and outside the House, a great mass of informed opinion, who are against the Order and who have always taken a very great interest in prisons and prison reform. The right hon. Gentleman has not made a very good case for the Order. He told us what it would not do, but he did not tell us what it would do. I hope that even at this late stage, even though he knows that he can get a majority in the Lobbies, he will take note of this informed opinion, and of all the leaders which have appeared in all the informed newspapers over the last few weeks, and agree to withdraw the Order.
If it does not make much difference, why bring in the Order at all? If it makes a great deal of difference, then it will make a great deal of difference which he has not succeeded in explaining to the House tonight. Although my right hon. and hon. Friends have a free vote tonight, I hope that as many hon. Members as possible on both sides of the House will be prepared to go into the Division Lobbies against the Order and that we can go on with what has been the satisfactory way of the past.

7.54 p.m.

Mr. John Wells: I support my right hon. Friend on this Order. Some weeks ago, I was more of the opinion of the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon), but I have changed my opinion for a variety of reasons. I have had a number of assurances, and if we are to hear from my right hon. Friend again tonight I hope that we will be able to answer one or two small questions.
My first doubt in the past was whether in future assistant directors, now assistant commissioners, will continue to be


recruited in approximately the same numbers: and, as at present, from the ranks of those with considerable prison experience. I understand that that is the case, but I should be glad to have a categorical assurance.
Secondly, I was very perturbed in the past by the slow rate of promotion of she basic grade of prison officer to principal prison officer. The Prison Officers' Association is perturbed by the slowness of the promotion of its members and because of that slowness it has been pressing for appointments to the grade of assistant governor II not to be made from outside the uniformed service. That is part of the policy of the official professional body.
Like the hon. Lady, I believe that it is very important that people should come into the prison service at all levels and I am sorry that these ladies and gentlemen should argue through their professional body against having this intake. But unless there is some speeding up in their promotion system, they are bound to continue to have this doubt. I therefore ask my right hon Friend the specific question whether he can see earlier promotion than the present speed of about twelve years with a certain pay increment for the first promotion. It is too slow. Can he offer prison officers in the basic grade quicker promotion?
Recruiting is said to be running at a satisfactory figure. This was said by my noble Friend in another place when he introduced the Order there ten days ago. However, if I recollect the figures in the 1961 Report of the Prison Commissioners correctly—I do not have it before me—about 45,000 persons inquired about joining the prison service of whom only 430 actually became established officers. That is fewer than one in a hundred of those who sought information with a view to making this a career. I hope that the position has improved during the past year, for we cannot go forward with the great experiments to which both my right hon. Friend and the hon. Lady referred unless there are adequate and contented staffs of all grades.
My next concern is with the prison medical service. It is now more than sixteen years since a member of this service was appointed a Prison Com-

missioner. I forget the name of the last gentleman to have such an appointment, but I believe that the one before him was Dr. Methven, who, at one time, was Governor of Maidstone Prison, which means that he was appointed to the Commission as an ex-governor and not as an ex-member of the prison medical service.
More appointments to assistant directorships must be made from gentlemen —and ladies, if need be—from the prison medical service. I should also like to see closer interchange between men and women from the medical service and doctors in outside practice. It takes years to become an experienced prison medical officer, but there are certain onerous and tedious duties which experienced prison medical officers have to undertake in courts away from their prisons and which could be done for a small fee by local practitioners.
Another of my worries is concerned with the chaplains branch. I understand that chaplains are appointed for seven years and then on a year-to-year basis to a maximum of twelve years.
I believe that this is right and that there should not be a long-established chaplains department. These chaplains should have close contact with parochial life outside. They should bring in a breath of fresh air from ordinary parish life, but there is a substantial body of opinion among the chaplains who would like to see themselves and various other ancillary members of the staff, the non-disciplinary staff, reorganised on a regional basis, which I believe might be one of the advantages which will flow from this Order. Is there any hope of the non-disciplinary staff having some sort of regional organisation to assist them in their work?
My right hon. Friend has said, and I am grateful to him for saying it, that one of the advantages of this Order is that those in charge of prison administration will be in closer contact with the Home Office Research Unit. I believe that this is extremely valuable. The hon. Lady mentioned the woeful state of after-care. It is in after-care that we are really, in the long run, seeking to help ex-prisoners, and I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will institute some new arrangement for after-care.
So far, this debate has been conducted without party antagonism, and the same


might be said of the debate on this Order in another place, but those who know training prisons are somewhat perturbed at the attitude of the trade unions. I do not want to bring in any party point, and I hope that those hon. Members who are trade unionists will go along with me in what I am saying. It seems a tragedy to teach a man a trade in a training prison which he cannot possibly expect to follow if he goes outside, because of the attitude of various trade unions.

Miss Bacon: Will the hon. Gentleman make it quite clear from where he gets his impression? My information, and I have gone into this very carefully, is that there is no antagonism on the part of the trade unions In fact, there is a committee, on which trade unionists sit, to assist in this matter. This is the excuse rather than the reason for these men not being employed. The real reason is that there is not the proper accommodation in prisons to enable them to do a proper day's work.

Mr. Wells: The hon. Lady has got me wrong. I was talking about training prisons and prisoners learning a trade. I shall say something later about the point made by the hon. Lady. In the training prisons men learn certain trades which they cannot follow on release. This is my information, but I am not going to divulge my sources; and I hope that I shall not be sent to prison for failing to do so. Will my right hon. Friend, as a result of this Order, take deliberate and definite steps to get closer to the trade unions so that we may have the benefit of their help and advice?

Mr. J. J. Mendelson: The hon. Gentleman said that he welcomed the Home Secretary's assurance that the people in charge of prison administration would be closer to the Research Unit of the Home Office. Can he explain why this Order is necessary to bring that about?

Mr. Wells: I do not think that it is for me to explain that. I think that that is for my right hon. Friend, but if the administration is brought within the Home Office, and if the regionalisation which I have suggested is carried out, the practical experience gained by the Research Unit can be made available to the prisons more quickly.

Mr. Victor Yates: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the various prisons men are trained to be builders, painters, decorators, tailors, and many other things? They are trained in many trades which they can follow in ordinary life, and this training was started after discussions with the trade unions.

Mr. Wells: The hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity of making his points in his own speech. I said that there were certain trades to which my remarks applied.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Mention the trades.

Mr. Wells: Printing, for one.

Mr. V. Yates: Oh.

Mr. Wells: The hon. Gentleman must not just say "Oh" and dismiss my point.
Perhaps I might now deal with the point about work in local prisons. The fact remains that it is very difficult for prisoners to do a full day's work, for two reasons. First, the work is not available, for one reason or another. Here I do not specifically blame the trade unions, and I am sorry that the hon. Lady misunderstood by point. I hope that there will be closer liaison with the trade unions so that in future there can be no possible misunderstanding.
Secondly, I hope that there will be greater recruitment of staff, because until there are more staff to deal with men getting to and from work, and to speed up unlocking and locking up the men, we cannot make any progress in the matter of daily work.
My right hon. Friend mentioned integration with the architects department, which has begun. I hope that this integration and the building programme will be speeded up. Hon. Members are no doubt aware that in many large prisons on the Continent it is customary to have a W.C. in every cell. Pentonville was built to take them, but they were removed because of the habits of prisoners in earlier days. I am not advocating tonight that we should put W.C.s into every cell of our great and ancient prisons, but I am advocating a substantial speed-up of the building programme and the provision of more small units where better sanitary conditions can be provided.
I have two more specific questions to put to my right hon. Friend. First, will there be any actual cash saving as a result of this proposal, and if so, how much? I think that we would all like to know the measure of saving. Secondly, will there be some form of annual report? The hon. Lady mentioned the lack of annual reports in certain other departments of the Home Office. In past years we have all welcomed the Prison Commissioners' reports, or at least the more factual parts of them, and I hope that we shall continue to have some realistic report every year.
Finally, I remind the House, as did my right hon. Friend, that prisons and prisoners are the responsibility of us all, not only in this House, but outside, and I hope that the nation will take a more responsible view of this great problem.

8.8 p.m.

Sir George Benson: Some years ago the hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) and I defeated a proposal to abolish the Prison Commissioners. Tonight, I propose, rather regretfully, to support the proposal.
The Prison Commissioners have a long and honourable record and I shall be sorry to see them go, but I do not think that any question of principle is involved. The final responsibility for the administration of our prisons rests not with the Prison Commissioners or with the Prisons Board, but with the Home Secretary, and any change of any kind in the administration must have the approval of the Home Secretary.
I have changed my point of view. The reason for this is that the late Sir Lionel Fox, Chairman of the Prison Commissioners for 20 years, approved of the abolition of the Prison Commissioners. I am not prepared to pit my judgment against his. Fox was probably the greatest penal reformer since Howard, in the 18th century. When he took over the chairmanship of the Prison Commission there was one open borstal and one small open prison camp which was dependent upon Wakefield Prison. When he retired there were over 20 open institutions, many of them large and important like Sudbury, Leyhill and the great modern prison of Ford, close to Arundel.
It will be remembered that at the end of the 19th century the Gladstone Committee repudiated the idea that punishment was the purpose of prison, and said that the dual and concurrent aims of the penal system should be deterrence and reforms. Many years later, Sir Lionel Fox went a step further. He repudiated the idea of deterrence as a deliberate aim of the prison system. He said that deterrence must be expected to lie in the loss of liberty, and not in the prison régime. It was only under those conditions that the Prison Commissioners could get on with their real job, which was to make our penal system as reformative as possible.
There are not many people who can look back for as long as I can over our prison system. It is just short of 50 years since I was serving a prison sentence, and I am reasonably familiar with the majority of our large prisons at any rate. It is easy to criticise the prison system. For the most part, our maximum security prisons are nearly a century old, and were built for a purpose entirely different from that which we have in view today. They were built for one purpose, and it is a very difficult job to adapt them for another. But within the limitations imposed upon them the Prison Commissioners have done a good job, and I shall be sorry to see them go.

8.13 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: On one point at least I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Sir G. Benson), namely, that the Order does not involve an issue of principle. It is a matter of working out what one believes to be its administrative effects.
The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department revealed an approach to the whole problem of our prison system which is fundamentally different from that of hon. Members on this side of the House. He suggested that it was difficult to do a lot of the things that he would like to do so long as the crime wave continued. The approach of hon. Members on this side of the House is that the crime wave is likely to continue until there is effective penal reform. I should like to read to the House a short extract from an article in the current issue of Peace News, written by a man undergoing preventive


detention. Talking of the crime wave, he says:
The basic reason for this return to crime by the majority is—I think they call it a sense of not belonging, in actual fact loneliness. … Nine out of ten of those men have been subtly brainwashed (though not perhaps deliberately) by long hours of solitary, day after day, year after year. They have become introverts with a bad inferiority complex. Some can scarcely think, save eratically, through not being able to talk and meet on equal terms outside their own sphere. How they got into this predicament, in the first instance, who knows?—a bad background, not necessarily poor, but a lack of something, love and affection to say the least. The net result of this is a show of bravado as a gesture of defiance to the world when faced with the facts of everyday living.
That expresses to many of us the root cause of the crime wave that we are now unhappily experiencing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield paid proper tribute to the Prison Commissioners, but it is easy to take too rosy a view of their achievements. There is a great deal on which we have to congratulate them, especially when we remember that what they have achieved has been achieved in the teeth of parsimony on the part of the Treasury. But not all the defects in the prison system today are due to financial causes.
We must all have been disturbed by the articles recently appearing in the Guardian, written by a former Member of the House, Mrs. Lena Jeger. Those of us who have read it must also have been extremely disturbed by the document recently published by the Prison Reform Council, entitled inside Story, written by a number of men and women who have had recent experience of prison sentences. Whatever one may think of civil disobedience—and I am as bitterly opposed to it as anybody in the House—it has brought into contact with the prison system men and women of high intelligence, of the utmost probity, and with a profound sense of social responsibility.
The reactions of these people to the prison system are contained in Inside Story. It is based on the experience of a number of men and women in 12 English prisons. The document makes it clear that many of the defects are due to the buildings in which the prisoners are housed. I do not propose to deal with those tonight, but there are two other classes of complaint which are not due to

the physical circumstances obtaining in the prison buildings. There are some for which the Home Office and the Treasury must be held responsible, and I want to give some examples from Inside Story.
For example, the report refers to the failure to provide disposable paper handkerchiefs for prisoners with colds, making them, instead, rely upon the two cotton handkerchiefs which are issued to them. Attention is also drawn to the fact that the diet for pregnant women is not up to the standard generally recommended outside. Chamber pots do not have lids—which, in cells occupied by two or three men, is an essential requirement. The report complains of the fact that in Stafford Prison, for example, there is one lavatory and sink for over one hundred prisoners. In some prisons the only way of washing up eating utensils is by using the bowls provided for the prisoners' personal hygiene.
The young prisoners in Wormwood Scrubs have to use sheets for as long as four weeks without their being changed. Only in exceptional circumstances are prisoners giving protective clothing. The clothing for women in winter is described as being inadequate. Complaint is made of the fact that remand libraries and young prisoners' libraries are often seriously short of good material, and that the books are dilapidated. The report also states that there were many broken windows in Stafford Prison. In the same prison there are only enough knives and forks to supply 30 out of 250 men. Those complaints are presumably attributable to lack of financial provision in the prison service.
The second class of defects shows lack of imagination, or, at any rate, lack of persistence on the part of the Prison Commissioners themselves. The report draws attention to the fact that on admission prisoners are not allowed to keep drugs which have been prescribed for them by their own private doctors. It mentions that atomisers, which are essential for asthmatics, are not allowed, and suggests that the medical officer should always check on such matters with the prisoners' private doctors. It says that epileptics should either sleep in hospital or be provided with special facilities for calling for help. Ft complains that women are given venereal disease tests without their permission being sought. The writers draw attention to the fact


that the lavatories for women prisoners have no inside bolts which is a matter of considerable embarrassment to many prisoners. They describe how Mr. Michael Randle last year at Wormwood Scrubs, was put on report for insisting on calling an officer to let out a fellow prisoner who was suffering from diarrhoea and in great pain.
Another matter about which they complain is the restriction on the writing of letters by prisoners. They draw attention to the fact that most prisoners are not great letter writers. They complain that newspapers sent into the prison must not be passed on to other prisoners, for some completely inexplicable reason. The placing of prisoners on restricted diet as a method of punishment attracts their attention. They suggest that qualified prisoners ought to be allowed to give instruction to other prisoners, for example in reading. They suggest that when prisoners are in prison, not only should they be allowed to do useful work but their insurance card should be stamped and their P.A.Y.E. form completed. Another suggestion which they make is that it is quite improper and inhuman for a prisoner, when discharged, to be given a travel warrant clearly marked "Her Majesty's Prison".
Those are not points involving any expenditure of finance by the Treasury. They represent a failure of imagination on the part of the Prison Commissioners or the Home Office and they certainly do not measure up to the recommendations of the Gladstone Report of 1895 to which my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) referred and to which reference was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield. The Gladstone Committee said that the prison treatment should be designed to maintain, stimulate or awaken the higher susceptibilities of prisoners and turn them out of prison better men and women both physically and morally than when they came in.
The sort of conditions revealed by Inside Story certainly suggests that those high standards are not being applied at the present time. But if the Commissioners have failed, the Home Secretary has also failed in the discharge of his overall responsibility and therefore come to this conclusion. Having listened

very carefully to the speech of the Home Secretary, which was really a speech telling us that this Order would not make the slightest difference whatever to the Prison Service, I have come to the conclusion that, although I am not convinced that the change will make things even worse than at present, I see no reason to suppose that it will produce any improvement.
Therefore, if my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East goes into the Division Lobby against this Order, as I hope she will, I shall go with her.

8.23 p.m.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: I listened with care and interest to the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Greenwood) and I wondered what would be the outcome of his argument. I remained in breathless anxiety until the very last word, because it seemed to me that there was no logic whatever in his reason for wishing to vote against this Motion.
In this debate we are probing into the very entrails of Government. Here we are concerned with the internal affairs of a Department, the Home Office, and nothing less. It is extremely difficult for anyone who has not had actual experience of working in this Department to understand exactly the nature of the problem. It is also extremely difficult for anyone who has had that experience, as I have, to speak about it.
In the first place, there is, of course, some danger of impropriety. I do not think that it would be a good thing if those who have been Ministers discussed what passed between them and their advisers. But that would be relevant to the debate this evening. If one defends a particular action, one lays oneself open to the charge of being merely loyal to old advisers. If one is critical one is disloyal and soured-up. The fact is that the responsibility for this decision is that of the Home Secretary and nobody else.
If the Home Secretary tells the House, "This step I regard as being necessary in the interests of the good administration of my Department" the House is bound to accept his ipsi dixit—[HON MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Members express surprise. But they must suppose


that some day they will be responsible for running a Government Department. If they are to be told that they are not to run that Department as they think best, but in some way laid down by the vote of this House, I do not think that they will be successful.
At all events, if the Home Secretary says that the proper running of his Department requires a particular course of action, the onus lies on those who deny that to prove that the course of action is not necessary.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: This Department has been run adequately since 1877—

Mr. Sydney Silverman (Nelson and Colne): It has not.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: Well, as adequately as the Home Office ever would be run. When did the Home Secretary come to this decision? It was only a year ago. Why has it been delayed so long if it is so necessary?

Sir Lucas-Tooth: I was interested to hear the hon. and learned Member for Crewe (Mr. Scholefield Allen) say that this Department has been run so adequately all that time. I was there for four years of that time, and I have never received such a compliment from a constituent in my life before. In saying that the Department has been well run the hon. and learned Gentleman is complimenting the successive Ministers who have been in charge of that Department—

Mr. Scholefield Allen: Nonsense.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: —including the present Home Secretary.
The Prison Commission is an historical anomaly. It was set up in the last century when constitutional ideas were somewhat different from now and the anomaly is one which is leading to great inconvenience in administration. I do not think that it needs a great streteli of imagination to appreciate that a small enclave of civil servants incorporated for a particular purpose is something which cannot be expected to function properly in a great modern Department of State.
The hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) objected to this transfer being made on the ground that the other responsibilities of the Home

Secretary in this connection were not such as she thought were being carried out. She cited in particular the function of after-care. I go so far in agreeing with her as to say that I do not think after-care was the service of which I felt most proud during the time I was at the Home Office. But does it not occur to her that that possibly may be due to the fact that there has been something of an artificial wall placed between the Prison Commission and those responsible for after-care? Is not that possibly some part of the explanation why the one service is not so satisfactory as the other?
The existence of a commission, an incorporated body, obscures the true constitutional position. The Prison Commission is an incorporated civil servant. It is literally that. It has no independence of any kind whatsoever other than that which any other civil servant may have. The advice of the Commission is simply the advice of a civil servant. I am bound to say that, searching my memory, I cannot remember any occasion on which the Commission, as a Commission, gave corporate advice. Here I am speaking of a good many years ago and it may be that occasionally it did, but, in practice, I do not think that it ever did.
The existence of the Commission, however, is a standing temptation to poor administration. I can remember occasionally having letters given me to sign which referred to the Prison Commission as if it were an outside body. There was a tendency to pass away responsibility. That is quite wrong. It would be absolutely as wrong as if I said that it was a matter which was being attended to by the Permanent Under-Secretary of State. If that were done there would be an outcry in this House. To my mind, there should be just such an outcry if any attempt were made to pass responsibility to the Prison Commission, which is just as responsible to the Home Secretary and in precisely the same way as any other civil servant.
I was astonished when I read The Times leading article this morning and found this phrase:
… the present remarkably good standing of the commission in the public eye …
One thing which has always seemed essential about our constitution is that


we should not praise our civil servants because the next thing we would be doing would be blaming them. Then we would be getting away from the soundness of our constitutional principles. I feel that there is very sound constitutional ground for the step which is being taken this evening. I am glad that it is being taken, and if a Division is called on the Order I shall vote in favour.

Mr. Mendelson: The hon. Member once served in the Home Office as an Under-Secretary. He has told the House very solemnly that the Prison Commission, as a body, never gave advice to him. Will he tell us whether he is aware of any occasion when the Commission did not give advice to his right hon. Friend, who was at that time in charge of the Department?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I cannot remember corporate advice being given. I am not saying that it was never given. In the ordinary way the Chairman or individual Commissioners gave advice. Probably the Commissioners took counsel together, but if they had given corporate advice it would have been the advice of a corporate civil servant and nothing more.

8.33 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I approach this question in, I suppose, a way which is unique in this House. There are many hon. Members who have themselves had the experience of serving a prison sentence. There is my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Sir G. Benson) and there was sitting beside me until a few moments ago my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). A little time ago I saw below the Bar of the House my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Sorensen). There is also my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones) and my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway). All of us a generation or more ago had the experience of serving prison sentences and therefore we talk with some personal experience of the matters which are in dispute.
My position is a little different from theirs in that, in addition, I have had

some professional connection with these matters over the whole, or nearly the whole, of the intervening period. I hope, therefore, that the House will believe me when I say that I try to approach this matter in a constructive, objective way and that I am not anxious to score debating or party points one way or another for or against the Order which is being recommended to us.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) gave us a formidable list of people who are against the Order. I was a little frgihtened of it. There were one or two in the list whose opinions might influence my own, but on the whole I could not help sympathising with the little boy in the Sunday school class who, when the class was asked to hold up their hands to show which little boys would like to go to Heaven, refrained from doing so. When he was asked, "Jimmy, do you not want to go to Heaven?", he was irreverent and mischievous enough to answer, "Not if that crowd is going". Therefore, I should like to approach it in a purely personal way, without being influenced by that kind of considertaion.
The Prison Commission was set up in 1877 in order administratively to be responsible, subject to the control of the Home Secretary, for prisons. That is 86 years ago. The ultimate purpose of having a prison system, whether it is by means of deterrents or by reform or by any other principle that recommends itself, is to reduce crime. Has it done so? Figures have been given of the rapid increase in the numbers. There were 11,000 people in detention, was it 20 years ago?

Mr. Scholefield Allen: In 1938.

Mr. Silverman: Twenty-five years ago there were 11,000. A quarter of a century later there are 30,000. That is not a tribute to the efficiency of the system. It has wholly and lamentably failed to achieve any part of its social function.
Those of us who have seen the thing from the inside are in no doubt as to why it has failed. All of us came out of it with a feeling about prisons which can best be described by borrowing a phrase from another branch of the law. We came out regarding them with hatred, with ridicule, and with contempt, but especially with contempt. I cannot


imagine that there is any man or woman—there may be a few, but not enough to affect the result—who came out of one of these institutions at the end of a short or a long period in any way a better man than the man who went in. The longer the period he was in, the worse he became. He gets a habit. He becomes institutionalised. He acquires characteristics that make it impossible for him to live a normal life outside the institution after long years of incarceration.
Of course prisons mould people's personalities. The idea was that they would mould them for the better, but they do not. They mould them for the worse. That is what is wrong with them.

Mr. Ellis Smith: That still applies, does it?

Mr. S. Silverman: Yes, certainly it still applies. The description by my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Greenwood) was not of the conditions 40, 50, 60 or 70 years ago. They are the conditions today. I would confess that in some respects prisons today are a little better than they were in my time. In other respects they are worse. The horrible conditions of overcrowded prisons and cells are the product of comparatively recent years.
I say with great respect and, indeed, affection to my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale that I could not follow his argument. What he was saying, as far as I could understand—and I hope that I do his argument no injustice—was that the Prison Commissioners are partly responsible, that the Home Secretary is partly responsible and that, therefore, if I am asked to transfer the responsibility for this from a body which has admittedly failed to someone else, some other institution of which I have no guarantee that it will succeed, I leave the responsibility in the hands of those who admittedly have failed. With due respect to my hon. Friend, that argument just does not make sense.
I hope that the Home Secretary will not mind my saying what I intend to say because it is no good hon. Members making contributions to these debates unless they are prepared to say what is in their minds. If it were a question of handing over these responsibilities to the present Home Secretary I would have very serious doubts about what I was doing. I am

not saying that in a partisan way and I certainly would not like it to be said of me. If it were said of me I would certainly not think it funny so I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept the spirit in which I say it. The Home Secretary has been in that office for some time and I must say that he has lost the confidence of a great many people regarding his capacity to understand, his compassion, and in other matters.
The hon. Member who said that we are not concerned with the personalities of particular Ministers at any moment is quite right. They can change. They have changed, even without a change of Government. And when a change of Government takes place they certainly change. What we must consider is the change on its merits without regard to the particular Minister who may have to administer the office. Is it any more sensible on my part to say that I support the change from one authority that has failed to another—an authority about which I have no reasonable expectation of success? Is that any more sensible than the argument my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale advanced and which I have criticised?
It is a difficult question to answer, but I think that, on balance, the answer must be "Yes". It is in every way better, failure or success. The responsibility should rest fairly and squarely—and, as the Home Secretary so rightly said, should be seen to rest fairly and squarely—on those who are responsible, first to the House of Commons and then to the country, for what is done. At the moment our prisons are said to be overcrowded and, indeed, they are. But they are overcrowded very largely with people who should not be there. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East mentioned some of the classes, but there are others.
Two men were recently sent to prison—I am not debating the merits of this; certainly this is not the time to do so—for refusing to give evidence before a tribunal. It would have been inadmissible evidence before any other court in the country; hearsay evidence. Because they refused to give hearsay evidence, they go to prison. Is that the proper way to deal with people like that? There are all the other people who, however mistakenly, but nevertheless with a spirit of self-sacrifice and devotion,


perhaps thought it right to do certain things that were an inconvenience to the police, to traffic or to other users of the road. No doubt they should not have done it, but what earthly good was done by sending them to prison if they only added their own quota to an overcrowded situation which is a disgrace to our country in the eyes of the world?
Then there are the children of quite a young age who are sent to prison and kept there for weeks or months, not as part of their sentence but waiting until they can begin their sentence in some other institution in which for the moment there is no place. After weeks or months they are sent to the other institutions which make a genuine attempt at reform. The opportunity has been lost by then. There are the children sent to prison because there is no room in a remand home. They are sent to prison for safe custody, maybe not having committed any offence at all. They are children in need of care and protection, children to whom enough wrong has surely been done already without adding to it because of our administrative inefficiency.
We could reduce the population of the prisons very quickly if we took out of them just those, and only those, of whom people would say that they ought not to have been there. And in these things it is better, on the whole, that the Home Secretary or other Ministers at the Home Office should stand at the Dispatch Box and explain and defend if they can, and not write letters, as the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) said, saying, "I will consult the Prison Commissioners" or, "The Commissioners advise me so-and-so." There is nothing to be gained by that.
I think it was the Home Secretary who said that if we did not have the Prison Commissioners nobody would dream today of setting them up. I think that was right. If that is so, then on balance of argument we ought to support the Order. It was complained that we could not amend the Order, but why should we be able to amend it? The question is simply one not capable of any answer except "Yes" or "No". We keep the Prison Commissioners or we do not. What room for amendment is there in that? But let the responsibility rest where it should rest and where

constitutionally it should always rest. When responsibility is borne in that way, and is seen to be borne in that way, let us see an immediate improvement in the situation and let there be no more excuses and no more lapses.

8.49 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I was very glad to hear the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Sir G. Benson), because but for a speech of his, fifteen years ago, the Prison Commissioners would have been abolished then. I am glad to know that after waiting fifteen years he has accepted the advice given to him then which at that time he rejected.
This idea of Commissioners is a nineteenth century idea. In many of the alterations that were made in the Government machine of the nineteenth century, Commissioners played a part. Even the great Reform Parliament of 1832, when it set about reforming the Poor Laws of the day, to relieve the country from the disgrace of what was known as the Speenhamland system, appointed Poor Law Commissioners whose administration was so terrible that The Times of those days was the first and the loudest critic.
In this century we have come to believe in the doctrine held by our great predecessors of the seventeenth century, that the advisers of the Crown are responsible to this House for the actions they take as the Executive. I held that view in 1948. I was quite prepared to accept the responsibility that if I was Home Secretary and accepted advice tendered to me by a civil servant—whether a corporate civil servant or an individual civil servant—I was responsible to this House for accepting that advice and acting on it. I do not believe that, in the twentieth century we can conduct Government on any other basis.
It is true that that sometimes leads us into doing same very foolish things and thinking very foolish thoughts. I regret that if there is a Division this evening I shall have to go into the same Lobby as the Home Secretary, and I know that will take me a long time to live down with some of my colleagues—

Mr. V. Yates: The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) will be with my right hon. Friend there.

Mr. Ede: My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates) should judge how much a consolation that will be.
In this Motion we are dealing with the fundamentals of our modern Parliamentary Government. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on bringing forward this proposal, because from now onwards there will be no doubt as to who is responsible for anything that occurs in the prison service. In so far as they could, the Prison Commissioners have improved the system during the years they have been in office. Whether Alexander Paterson would have been able to do more or less had he not been a Commissioner, I do not know. All I can say is that I had many conversations with him, and received many recommendations from him. Where those recommendations did not involve too much money, it was possible to accept them, but it has been rightly said more than once this evening that the amount of money that will be available for providing a prison system that lives up to the views of the Gladstone Commission of 1895 largely depends upon the attitude of the Government as a whole.
I agree with all that has been said about the majority of the prison buildings. They were designed for a different system from that which the conscience of the country now demands. I did the best I could to persuade colleagues to let me build more prisons, but in the conditions of the first six years after the war one could not expect to be able to build new prisons when housing was so terrific a problem for ordinary people. There is nothing yet proposed by the Government for building that was not in the scheme I then brought forward, and I hope that, increasingly, it may be possible to help the prison officers, from governors downwards, in their attempt to get a more humane atmosphere into the prison system by the provision of buildings designed to deal with the modern requirements of the service.
I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman himself is from time to time faced with the same problem of priorities: "With this, that and the other thing needed, how can I expect to get money for this particular service, in view of the antiquated ideas still held in some quarters as to what the service should be allowed?"
I do not share all the misgivings that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) feels about the administration of the Home Office in some of its other services. I feel that the children's service and the newly appointed head of the children's department of the Home Office are doing excellent work and that the service will be considerably increased in value to the community.
I have no doubt that the Order before us tonight ought to have been carried years ago. I regret that I was responsible for being overborne by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield, because in those days, on this subject, he was a tremendous power, and I had enough trouble on that Bill without looking for trouble.
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on bringing forward this Motion. I am quite certain that he will get from whatever group of officials within his Department to whom he has to look for advice in the future the same sort of advice that he has received in the past from the Prison Commissioners, and I have no doubt that if he accepts that advice and carries it out vigorously tonight's debate will not have been in vain.

8.58 p.m.

Mrs. E. M. Braddock: I have listened carefully to the debate and I am not satisfied that any alternative has been suggested which will give more confidence to those who are serving prison sentences. A body slightly outside the Home Office, which was by way of being an adviser to the Home Office, is to be removed and one method of drawing attention to difficulties will be removed from the prisoners.
Will the Home Secretary tell us what the changes will mean and what the benefits will be—not the things that the Commissioners cannot do or that they fail to do, but what real benefits will result from disbanding the Commissioners?
I have a great contempt for the sort of thing that is happening at present. I was talking today to a man who was discharged from Durham Prison yesterday. I feel that the Home Secretary and this House will hear some very bad statements made about Durham Prison and what has been happening there over the


past three years. Some inquiry will have to be made into them. Who is to inquire? It is the Commissioners' responsibility sometimes to find out, to go and see whether something is going on in a prison or whether suggestions should be made about alterations. When there are no Commissioners, who is to inquire? Will the job be passed to someone in the Home Office whose inquiry and report will be based not on what is said by the prisoners but on what is said by officials in the prisons?
Is the Home Secretary aware that a public statement will very soon be made, and will, quite possibly, appear in the Press—it could cause quite a sensation—that over the past three years 18 prisoners in Durham Prison have either committed suicide or attempted to commit suicide? Who is to deal with these things? I have in my hand two letters smuggled out of a prison. If the Commissioners' advice had been taken about necessary changes, some of the things now going on in our prisons could not have happened.
I am sorry to disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) because I know of his vast experience. I knew him when he was in prison, and I know what he suggested should be done and what was said about our prisons then. Preston Prison has not changed very much since my hon. Friend was there, has it? It was a long time ago, I know.

Mr. S. Silverman: That was exactly my point, that the Prison Commissioners have so far completely failed to do anything.

Mrs. Braddock: I do not agree with my hon. Friend. The recommendations and suggestions of the Commissioners have not been accepted by the Home Office. If the Commissioners go, will it mean that no one outside will be able to make suggestions, that everything will have to come from the Home Office which, for years, refused to accept the recommendations of the Commissioners? Will the Home Office say that there is no one now to make recommendations, so it does not matter and nothing need be done?
I shall say something now that I have been waiting a long time to say. As I feel at the moment, I shall vote in favour of the Prison Commissioners being retained

until such time as a statement is made about satisfactory alternative arrangements for some body, some committee or responsible official outside the Home Office, to report to the Home Office and have more power than the Commissioners have had up to now.
Fortunately, from my point of view—that is the way I look at it—I mix with working-class people. Very often, after a prisoner is released from prison at 8 o'clock on a Saturday morning, he appears in my office at about 10 o'clock. Prisoners tell me about some of the things which go on and of which more notice should have been taken when references to them have appeared in the report of the Prison Commissioners. Only recently, I received a letter from a prisoner in Wakefield Prison. In that letter, which had been allowed to come out of the prison, he complained that he was being compelled to mix with homosexuals although he did not want to. I sent that letter to the Home Office. I received the staggering reply that, while he was working and in association with the other prisoners, nothing could happen in the way of homosexuality, but as soon as he came on to free time and could mix with them whenever he wanted to, no steps, so far as the Home Secretary was concerned, were taken and nothing was done in the prison to prevent what he complained of. Have we gone completely mad?
Men have told me that, before they went to prison, they had no knowledge whatever of what homosexuality was, but after they came out they had been homosexuals because of the associations they had had in prison. This is a shocking business, and it could not have happened if the recommendations of the Prison Commissioners had been accepted.
I do not want to go into this too much, but we have to face it. The Home Secretary will have to face it. There will be some statements made within the next few days which will show the need for an inquiry into what has been happening in our prisons.
I was amazed to discover that five of the warders who were involved in the reports and inquiry at Walton are now in Durham Prison. It would appear that there is something wrong in the Home Office if this sort of thing is not attended to. It is wrong that this sort


of thing should happen when there has been an inquiry and names have been mentioned and reports have been made by the Commissioners about the sort of changes which should take place. As I say, five warders who were involved in an inquiry concerning one prison are now in another prison where things are going on which should never go on.
There will have to be an inquiry and a report made about this matter. I do not know who will make the inquiry if we get rid of the Commissioners before April in order to find out whether the statements which will be made by a certain gentleman who was discharged yesterday are true. I will mention his name because if anything happens to him arising out of the statements which he makes I will hold the Home Secretary responsible. I believe that he will do a great service to the prisoners in prisons by the statements which he will make. I hope that he will be protected from being put in a difficult position or being framed to put him out of the way so that he cannot open his mouth for a long time. His name is Cronkshaw. I hope that note is taken of it. I hope that when he asks for an inquiry into what is going on in the prison that he was in there will be no framing of him. If there is, somebody will have to take responsibility for it and account to me for it because I have made the statement.
I have seen my noble friend Lord Stonham today. He tells me that he has sent details to the Home Secretary about a most shocking case of a man being injured and damaged in one prison. I shall not give the details, although I have them here from Lord Stonham.
I believe that if notice had been taken of the Commissioners' reports about the sort of things which can happen, then these things would not be happening today in what is supposed to be a civilised community. I do not want to go on for too long, because I think that I have said enough to draw attention to the position. I support my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) because I believe that, until such time as some other outside body is appointed to be responsible for what is happening in prisons and for what it is necessary to do about them, the Prison Commissioners should be retained. Until we have information about who will

replace the Commissioners, about who will be responsible for these matters and about whether the prisons will be in the same position in the next 20 years as they have been over the last 40 or 50 years with very little change, we should keep the Prison Commissioners.
If it is a question of getting rid of the Prison Commissioners because they are a nuisance and an awkward body because they have made too many reports of which no one takes any notice, then we should be told. If the Order goes through—and if the Whips are on I suppose that it will—those of us who get to know what is going on in prisons and who make inquiries to find out about the integrity of the people who make these comments will put many more very difficult questions to the Home Secretary about prison conditions and prisoners than he has had in the past. If that is what he wants, I assure him that I will take jolly good care to see that that is what he gets.

9.10 p.m.

Mr. Tom Driberg: My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock), who spoke with characteristic vigour, is one of the hon. Members who have widened this debate very usefully. I hope that in the fairly near future we will have a general debate on prison conditions, prison reform, all the nonsense that goes on, which my hon. Friend has put her finger on—the bad things that still happen in prisons, the deficiencies of after-care, which my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) also mentioned, and the question of the unstamped card, which we have constantly raised in the House of Commons.
If a man comes out of prison without a stamped insurance card, naturally—if he is lucky enough to get a job at all nowadays—the firm knows and the buzz soon goes round that he has just come out of prison. Whenever we have raised this detail in the House, we have always been told that the problem is inseparably associated with the problem of providing work at adequate wages in prison, or for prisoners to go out of prison to do. I quite see that point, but year after year passes and successive Home Secretaries tell us that a working party or a departmental committee has been considering the problem. When will they come to


a conclusion about it? When will adequate wages be provided for work done by prisoners, so that the burden on the taxpayer can be saved to a considerable extent in various ways, and so that men can come out with stamped cards?
The Home Secretary paid tribute to the "wonderful work", as he put it, that is being done in the prison service, and I agree with him that some fine, dedicated work is being done there. One of the difficulties about criticising is that one does not want to say anything that will deter good new recruits from going into the prison service. We know that one of the difficulties about organising a proper working day and working week for prisoners is the understaffing of the prison service. Therefore, we do not like to say things that may indirectly deter recruits from joining.
I wonder whether any copies of tonight's HANSARD will get into any of the prison libraries? I expect they will get lost on the way. After what my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange said about Durham Prison, I am pretty sure that, somehow, HANSARD will not arrive in the Durham Prison library. If any copies do arrive, however, there will be a good deal of cynical laughter among prisoners who may happen to read the tributes paid tonight, when they read about the "wonderful work" that goes on in prison. I am thinking of people like the man I saw in Leeds Prison on Sunday afternoon—a man whom I have known for some years. He is only 31, but he has spent more than half his life inside, including the whole of his adolescence and youth. He is, of course, totally embittered. If one were to talk to him about the wonderful work that goes on in prisons, he would simply call it "a load of bull".
This is the most interesting kind of debate—the sort in which different views are expressed on both sides, and there is a free vote. I feel great diffidence in expressing any views that differ in even the smallest degree, on a subject like this, from those of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) and my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Sir G. Benson). Until half an hour or so ago, I did not expect that I should also have to tackle my hon. Friend the

Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), who picked on my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Greenwood) for lack of logic because he had pointed to some of the things wrong with prison life today. "Well", says my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne, "that shows that you should not oppose the Order, because the Prison Commissioners are, after all, partly responsible for what is wrong with prison life today."

Mr. S. Silverman: My hon. Friend would not wish to misunderstand the point. That is not what I said at all. My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale said that he preferred to keep the responsibility with the Prison Commissioners because he had no hope that the Home Secretary would do any better. I may be wrong, but I do not think that that would be a very good move.

Mr. Driberg: I am sorry if I misinterpreted my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne, but as I understood his rebuke of my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale, it was that his speech was illogical because he wanted to preserve a status quo in which bad things had been able to occur in prisons.

Mr. Silverman: No.

Mr. Driberg: Very well. HANSARD will judge between us tomorrow.
The answer to what I think my hon. Friend's point would have been, if he had made it, is to be found in a letter from Sir Harold Scott, which was quoted in one of the debates on the 1961 Act. It is a long letter and at this stage I will only read a sentence or two from it. Sir Harold, who had himself been Chairman of the Commission for seven years, and therefore knew its work well, wrote:
It is the simple truth that over the last forty years it is the Prison Commissioners themselves and not the Home Office who have originated almost every project of development and reform.
I think that is the answer to the point that I thought had been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne.

Major Sir Frank Markham: That was their job. It was one of their responsibilities to initiate reforms.

Mr. Driberg: Quite so—and their recommendations have been constantly


rejected and their attempts at reform frustrated. They are, as it were, the good side of the Home Office in this matter. We are now wiping them out and handing everything over to the bureaucracy presided over so grimly by the present Home Secretary.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange, made the point that it was the Commissioners who have tried to get things done to improve the service. In some cases they have succeeded, and, of course, there have been some improvements. In other respects, however, they have been frustrated by the Home Office and still more, no doubt, by the Treasury, by the shortage of money for building and other improvements.
The other argument used by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne—I hope that he will not tell me that I have completely misunderstood this one as well—was also used by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields. It is the argument about the desirability of concentrating Ministerial responsibility, of being able to get at the political head of the Department here in Parliament, making him totally responsible for everything that goes on. But as I understand it—no doubt the Home Secretary will correct me if I am wrong—the right hon. Gentleman is responsible to Parliament already for the Prison Commissioners: so, in that respect, this change does not seem necessary. When we talk about Ministers having to answer at that Box for their Departments, and when it is said that it is not desirable that there should be outside Commissions, who are only half-responsible, or something like that, then I say, with the greatest respect to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields, that this is not only a nineteenth-century idea.
There are a vast number of degrees and shades of Ministerial responsibility. These range, for instance, from the complete responsibility of the Minister of Health for the working of the National Health Service—even though he will not answer, as he would not answer yesterday, about the labelling of boxes of pills—to the limited responsibility of the Minister of Power, for instance, for some of the nationalised industries.
By a self-denying ordinance, which should perhaps now be looked at again,

Parliament agreed, in the time of the Labour Government, not to ask questions about matters of day-to-day administration in the nationalised industries; but we still have the right to raise all these matters in debates on the Adjournment, or in a major debate about a nationalised industry, and the Minister of Power, or whoever the appropriate Minister is, is there to answer. There are these various degrees of responsibility and I do not see that the Prison Commissioners fall outside the scope of proper Ministerial responsibility in this respect.
Another minor example is that of the responsibility of the Treasury for bodies such as the Arts Council. The Treasury Ministers will not reply in detail about Arts Council expenditure, but, of course, they are ultimately responsible, and once a year, or whenever Parliament chooses to have it, there can be a debate about the administration of such bodies. I do not seriously think that this is a strong argument for the Order.
I did not think that the Home Secretary made a positive case for the Order anything like as strong as the case my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East, made against it. The hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) made a slightly stronger case than the Home Secretary himself did, except for the extraordinary opening passage of his speech in which he implied that Parliament had practically no right to question the Home Secretary on a matter affecting the internal administration of his Department, and that if he came to the House and told us that this was so, we jolly well ought to take it and not doubt or dare to vote against it, or raise our voices at all. That is a recipe for a Reichstag rather than a Parliament.
One point which I noticed in reading through the debates on the 1961 Act was the very close voting which there was in the Standing Committee. This Section was carried by only 14 votes to 12 and there was, as I hope there will be tonight, a certain amount of cross-voting. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields voted for the Section and several hon. Members who were supporters of the Government voted against it.
Possibly it was because of this that the then Home Secretary, now the First


Secretary of State, was still unsure some months later whether this Order was ever to be brought forward. I was rather surprised to find that on 12th April, 1961, the then Home Secretary said:
… we are not absolutely decided on taking the powers, but it is likely …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th April, 1961; Vol. 638, c. 393.]
It cannot be so very important, or so utterly essential to the good administration of the Home Office, that this Order should go through if, after all those debates on the Measure which enabled the Order to be brought to Parliament, the Home Secretary could say that the Government were "not absolutely decided on taking the powers". He was still hesitant then. Why, now, is it necessary? There is an old Conservative axiom, "If it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change". It is surprising that a Conservative Home Secretary should ignore that principle when, clearly, it is not necessary, or his predecessor would not have made that remark in 1961.
hope that in his winding-up speech the Home Secretary will clear up some of the contradictions which have arisen both here and in another place. One contradiction which underlay his speech was less crudely expressed than in the speech of the noble Lord who spoke for him in another place, who really, if I may say so without too much disrespect—though I do not feel too much respect for him, anyway, on this issue made a proper mess of his handling of the Order—

Hon. Members: Who was it?

Mr. Driberg: Earl Jellicoe.

Mr. J. Wells: If the hon. Gentleman has a copy of the debate in another place, perhaps he will remind us what his noble Friend Lord Stonham said immediately after my noble Friend had spoken.

Mr. Speaker: Order. A certain amount of rope is allowed in referring to debates in another place, but they become tedious if repeated here, and, therefore, become out of order.

Mr. Driberg: With great respect to you, Mr. Speaker, I was about to say that I would be delighted to quote the speech of my noble Friend Lord Stonham in extenso—and that could

never have been thought tedious even by you—but that I had always understood that it was out of order to quote from debates in another place in the same Session, except for Ministerial statements. If I am wrong, you will probably correct me.
But I was going to quote what the noble Lord who spoke for the Home Office in another place said, because it was rather different from what the Home Secretary said tonight, and I hope that the Home Secretary can clear up a certain amount of confusion which was caused thereby.
The noble Lord, Earl Jellicoe, who, I think, is Minister of State, Home Department, speaking on the question of promotion in the prison service, said:
It is not impossible, in my view, to conceive of that imaginary young officer at Wakefield one day becoming head of the Prison Department or, for that matter, Permanent Under-Secretary …
I think that the young officer probably is imaginary, but let that pass. It would be a fine thing if that happened, just as a lad who went down the pits when he was 14 was able to become Chairman of the National Coal Board, thanks to the nationalisation of the coal mines.

Mr. Greenwood: Or the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir G. Nabarro).

Mr. Driberg: When Earl Jellicoe said that, he was interrupted by one of my noble Friends, whose words I shall not quote so that I may remain within the bounds of order. He was, naturally, asking for a little more enlightenment on this point, and Earl Jellicoe said:
My Lords, I am saying that for the exceptional young prison officer there will be no limit to where he can get; although that type of class-to-class transfer would … be exceptional.
However, a few columns later, in column 1462, Earl Jellicoe returned to this point and said, to clarify it further because other noble Lords had been puzzled by it:
All I was saying, in answer to an interjection … was that a young man coming into the prison service would have in the future, as indeed he has now, a carrière ouverte au talent.
In the other place they do not have to have these phrases translated.
He could go right to the top, and right to the very top in exceptional circumstances.


He did not say "over the top", but "to the very top" in exceptional circumstances. One of my noble, but clearly obtuse, Friends still could not quite understand what he meant, and Earl Jellicoe then said:
I said 'right to the top'. I was not meaning right to the top at the moment of the Civil Service."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 21st February, 1963; Vol. 246. c. 1445–62.]
I honestly do not understand what these successive observations by the noble Lord mean. I hope that the Home Secretary will enlighten us further on the matter.
Although I have expressed this in a somewhat satirical way, this is a serious point, because of the underlying contradiction of which I have spoken. Many people have said that the Prison Commissioners are a body of men who have dedicated themselves to the prison service, have studied it and understand it thoroughly, and have occasionally produced a genius—a Paterson or a Fox—and who, therefore, should not be disbanded and turned into ordinary departmental civil servants.
We have had assurances that there will be no change in practice; that specialists in prison work will still be specialists in prison work. But if we also have what, in general, we would welcome—the possibility that any young civil servant can rise rapidly to the top, according to his abilities—it follows inevitably that a civil servant coming into the prison department of the Home Office, as it will now be called, will, when a vacancy occurs in some other department—perhaps the aliens department, which has nothing whatever to do with prisons—be transferred.
Is there not a contradiction between the glowing assurances of much wider and better opportunities of promotion for civil servants which Earl Jellicoe held out, and which the Home Secretary also touched on, and the other and converse assurance that there will be no interference at all with the specialist character of the prison department? I seriously ask the Home Secretary to deal again with this point, because the contradiction has not been cleared up.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale quoted from the document called inside Story, which was drafted by a number of highly articulate ex-prisoners. Incidentally, unless the Home

Secretary lets them out very soon, I hope that there will be some further factual evidence about prison life from our two journalistic colleagues whom he has now locked up. I hope that no prison regulations will stand in the way of their being allowed to write about their prison experiences, and to keep notes from day to day. I do not know whether the Home Secretary can give me an assurance on that point?
There is one point which my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale did not mention in connection with Inside Story. It is an obvious point. It occurs in all disciplined services—certainly in the Armed Forces—and it does not reflect particularly well or particularly badly on the Prison Commissioners. The document says:
At most prisons a special show is arranged for the visits of Prison Commissioners. Table cloths are put out, special meals are served and little extras like condiments and water appear on the meal tables, which are not usually considered important. This window dressing does not give the Commissioners a proper picture and only increases the prisoners' contempt for what he considers to be the dishonesty of the authorities. Surprise visits are the only way of seeing prisons in their normal routine.

Mr. H. Hynd: I follow my hon. Friend's argument, but in fairness it should be pointed out that there are visiting magistrates—one on duty each week—who can look in at a prison at any time in order to see what the conditions are.

Mr. Driberg: I am glad to be reminded of that, but it would be better still if the Prison Commissioners could arrive unexpectedly and look round. If it has been difficult for the Commissioners to do that, how much more difficult will it be for a Home Office official, or the Home Secretary himself, to pay a surprise visit? He could not do it. It would be regarded as discourteous to the Governor.

Mr. Ede: May I say to my hon. Friend that when I was Home Secretary I paid a surprise visit to Dartmoor. When I announced who I was at the wicket gate the man behind the window said, "Oh yeah!"

Mr. Driberg: I am delighted to hear it. That confirms my view that it was only during my right hon. Friend's tenure of office at the Home Department that it


became for a time one of the less reactionary Government Departments. However, the very fact that he has felt obliged to tell us that anecdote indicates that it is a rather exceptional thing for a Home Secretary to arrive—in fact, we must know that it is very unusual for an inspecting officer of any kind, in any service, to arrive—unexpectedly, and that a lot of "window-dressing" is done.
A year or two ago, the previous Home Secretary, who is now First Secretary of State, gave a peculiarly fatuous Answer to a Question in this House about the quality of the food being served in prisons. The right hon. Gentleman said that whenever he had visited prisons he had always found the food excellent. I was so staggered that I could not ask a supplementary question. The fact that the right hon. Gentleman seemed to have expected to be given the same food as the prisoners got every day was ridiculous—

Sir G. Benson: When I visit a prison, invariably I have a meal with the prisoners and I have found the "grub" exceedingly good.

Mr. Driberg: Perhaps they knew that my hon. Friend was coming.

Sir G. Benson: No.

Mr. Driberg: They probably did.
Of course, the food varies in prisons as in Army units, or anywhere else. Sometimes it is abominable and sometimes it is tolerable. I should be surprised to find it "extremely" good in any prison.
I have one other point, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to have gone on for so long, but I have been interrupted quite a lot and interruptions, as you always remind us, tend to prolong speeches. This is a purely personal experience of my own, relating to a constituent who is still in a certain prison which I will not name, although there is no reflection on the prison at all. Just before Christmas his mother was dying of cancer in London and, naturally, she was anxious to see him again; and he was anxious to come home and see her. But there was one difficulty. She was in hospital and she was extremely anxious that nobody else should know that her son was in prison. She did not want the people in the hospital wards to know, or any of her neighbours, or any-

body. We were able to arrange with the Prison Commissioners—I am glad to say that they went out of their way to arrange it—a visit to the hospital by the prisoner—who was serving a longish sentence for a quite serious crime—unescorted. He was allowed to go on parole to see his mother, and he returned the same night to the prison.
Not only was this done, but the Prison Commissioners arranged with me that I should have the private telephone numbers, at home, of members of their staff—because this was a holiday weekend—so that we could let them know at once if the mother's health took a turn for the worse, and she was dying, and so that they could then get in touch with the prison, even though it was a holiday weekend. I pay tribute to them for this, and I must also say that it was, of course, the Home Secretary's staff at the Home Office who were good enough to put me in touch with the Prison Commissioners for this service to be done. But I cannot help wondering whether one would get such personal, humane, and detailed service from the regular staff of a Government Department. Indeed, I do not know that one could expect it, and that is one reason why I support my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East in opposing this Order.

9.40 p.m.

Mr. Victor Yates: I have listened to every speech made in this debate and I think that what has been said justifies our demand for a discussion of this matter. The debate has revealed the urgency of discussing in this House the whole question of prisons.
I have never heard so many illogical reasons as those given for supporting this Order. The hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) supported the Order because the Home Secretary thought that it was right. My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Sir G. Benson) supported it because Sir Lionel Fox had come to the conclusion that it was right, as though that were a reason. My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), I think wrongly, inferred that the Prison Commissioners had totally failed. No one seems to have got down to the fundamental question. I am surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson


and Colne did not attempt to ask it. What evidence is there that if the Home Office took over the Prison Commissioners we should get more satisfaction in future than we have had in the past?
The hon. Member for Hendon, South —who is now walking out of the Chamber —has been Under-Secretary at the Home Office. A point he made in the debate was that he had never had a corporate decision of the Prison Commissioners put to him. Did he never read any of the Reports which have been sent? I had the privilege of being a member of the Estimates Committee and presiding over the Committee which examined prisons. We submitted a Report to the House. If the hon. Member, and all hon. Members who have been Ministers at the Home Office, had examined the evidence submitted by the Prison Commissioners themselves, they would never talk about not having decisions put to them. Those were corporate decisions.
In that Report, which was submitted to the House in 1952, we pointed out the crimes which had arisen as a result of overcrowding and lack of work in the prisons. From my experience of visiting many prisons in the country and talking to Prison Commissioners, I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne did a grave injustice to the Commissioners. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] He did. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock), in a very forthright speech, said that the Commissioners have not failed—it is our failure. I put it on all of us, the Government and Parliament. We have failed to accept the recommendations put to us from time to time.

Mr. S. Silverman: I am very sorry if I expressed myself so badly as to lead anyone to think that I thought that the Prison Commissioners had personally failed. What I thought was admitted by everyone was that the situation was wrong and that the Commissioners, although they have tried to cure it, have failed to cure it because they had insufficient power. In my opinion, that is not a good reason for leaving the power with them.

Mr. Yates: I appreciate that explanation. My hon. Friend said that the system had lamentably failed, but what worries me is that the new system which

we are asked to approve is not likely to improve the position. My view is that which was expressed in The Times leading article today. It says:
It is only to be expected that serious fears should exist as to how far the absorption of the commission would encourage the growth of a Civil Service mentality, a loss of the old esprit de corps, and an increasing compulsive avoidance of public scrutiny. Rather than this fate the Government should be thinking in terms of encouraging both the commission and the existing Home Office departments to establish freer direct relations with the world at large. The Government have already recognised that substantial misgivings exist on these scores.
I agree with that.
This matter was debated when the Criminal Justice Bill was going through the House in 1961. I want to refer to the speech to which my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Greenwood) has called attention and in which I was interested at the time, because the then Home Secretary was not clear that this would definitely be done. The then Home Secretary said in that same speech that when it was done he would be here. He is not here. The right hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Brooke) has taken his place. The then Home Secretary said this:
… I will give the assurance that when the Order does come before the House there will be full opportunity for it to be considered and that, if it is prayed against, I shall personally he here to answer points; and further than that, I will make it my business to study all of them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT 12th April, 1961; Vol. 638, c. 395.]
However, the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) is not here tonight. Let me say at once that I do not feel inclined to be quite so bard on the right hon. Member for Hampstead, who has succeeded him, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne was prepared to be. My hon. Friend will go into the Lobby and support the right hon. Gentleman with a sort of back-handed compliment.

Mr. S. Silverman: I did not notice the compliment.

Mr. Yates: It certainly was a compliment, but it was a back-handed one and not a very nice one. I believe that the Home Secretary is genuine in his desire to see that right is done. So that there shall be no misunderstanding, I congratulate him right away on one matter. I have wanted to say for a few


days that I congratulate him upon his courage in refusing to endorse the decision of the magistrates to inflict corporal punishment upon two Dartmoor prisoners. I want to see the Home Secretary doing more of that. I hope that he will go to Dartmoor. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) went there and afterwards said that when he got there it was like seeing a notice saying, "Abandon hope all ye that enter here".

Mr. Ede: I did not say that.

Mr. Yates: I thought that was the impression that Dartmoor made on my right hon. Friend, that all who entered there abandoned hope.
The Home Secretary has told us that he is visiting prisons. I am very glad that he is doing so. I wish that more magistrates, who after all are responsible for sending people to prison, would visit prisons. Visiting magistrates are all right, because they are opposed to the Order. The Home Secretary now proposes the Order. He says that there will not be much change. He also said that there is an urgent and vast need for something to be done. I do not understand how it will be done more easily by this method.
I put this question to the former Home Secretary in the same debate. I expressed the same fear as is expressed in today's leading article in The Times. I expressed the fear that Home Office officials would not be so accessible as the Prison Commissioners. I pointed out to the former Home Secretary that, when I wanted to discuss matters, I could ring up the Prison Commissioners and could go and discuss matters with them. The former Home Secretary gave me an assurance that all would be the same if this change were made and that I would have equal access. What happened? I have made only one approach since and that was in connection with the Dartmoor disturbance last December. I do not wish to be unfair to the Prison Commissioners or any civil servants but, frankly, I was not at all happy about the information I received on that occasion.
I tried to put a Question to the Home Secretary. I attempted to ask a Private Notice Question of him, but I was told by the Chair that my Question was not permissible. I was unable to place a

Question on the Order Paper without having to wait two months for it to be answered so I asked the Leader of the House if we could have a statement on the matter. The Home Secretary must have known about the Dartmoor disturbance and all the facts involved. Unable to get satisfaction in this direction, I went to the Prison Commissioners and asked them to give me some information about the riot in Dartmoor in which 11 prison officers were injured. I found a reluctance on their part. "Would it not be better for you to go to the Home Office?" I was asked. Eventually they wrote to me sending me some information. I then tried to put a Question to the Home Secretary. Unfortunately, my Question appeared on the Order Paper as No. 27 and it was not reached, although the right hon. Gentleman was answering first on that day. Thus we never had a detailed examination of the happenings in Dartmoor on that occasion.
Are we likely to get more satisfaction if we transfer this important matter to the Home Office? The Prison Commissioners have exercised an independence which I can admire. It is not their fault if the things they have asked to be done have not been done. The Home Secretary should assure the House much more than he does about how the sort of happenings I have described can be reasonably examined. After all, these points have been put to the right hon. Gentleman not only in reports but in Parliamentary Questions.
Time and again we have asked him to make a statement about prisoners sleeping three in a cell. We have particularly raised the question of prison work. A committee over which I presided recommended that certain work in prisons should be abolished; title sewing of mailbags in particular, for we thought that such work was soul-destroying and might have been the beginning of the dispute not only in Dartmoor but earlier—in Wandsworth and elsewhere. Disputes have arisen in prisons because the work the prisoners have been asked to do has been unacceptable to them and they have considered it unfair.
Consider the average working week in Winson Green Prison, Birmingham. It is no more than 16 hours a week—a


figure given by the Home Secretary himself. We must also consider what happens in the detention centres. I visited one at Ashford a few weeks ago and found boys of 14 to 20 years of age—361 of them—in their cells for 161 hours a day.

Miss Bacon: I think that my hon. Friend has made a slight mistake because he is referring, I believe, to the remand centre at Ashford—I raised this matter earlier—and not to what he described as a detention centre.

Mr. Yates: I apologise. Although I am referring to a remand centre at which the Home Office is carrying out an experiment, there are 361 boys confined to their cells for this number of hours each day. It appears that the Home Office cannot even find adequate work for these youngsters. This is simply horrible and the tragedy is that for many years these matters have been brought to the attention of the Home Office.

Mr. Philip M. Hocking: I have visited Winson Green Prison as well. Is it not true that the problem of work there is that they cannot find a sufficient variety of work? When I discussed the matter with the prison officers they said that the unions were largely against it.

Mr. Yates: That matter has already been discussed tonight. Had the hon. Member been present he would have heard it. What he says is not true of Winson Green Prison. In fact, a Quaker firm in Birmingham is providing a good deal of work to be done there. This is solely a question of providing work and not one of trade union antagonism. The trade unions have agreed to do certain things and have relaxed some of the opposition which may have been forthcoming from time to time and I believe that, by negotiation, many of the outstanding difficulties will be overcome. If the hon. Member visits some of the training prisons he will find the prisoners being trained in bricklaying, painting, decorating and tailoring. This is in training prisons. It is in the local prisons that difficulties occur.
I am terrified of the argument that we should simply hand over to another body of civil servants in the Home Office. This is a great responsibility, and we should be breaking with the past. The Prison Com-

missioners did their job extremely well and gained a great deal of public support. I have said previously in the House that when I am asked to meet a Minister and I find him surrounded by a body of civil servants I think it easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for an hon. Member to reach a Minister.
This proposal may lead to some economy but I am concerned about the humanity of the question. We shall never be satisfied until we have a reasonable approach. If the Home Secretary says that much has been done and he is concerned about this matter, may I ask whether as a result of passing the Order we shall have more debates in the House? It is years since we last had a debate on prisons. Shall we have more opportunities if we accept the Order, and will the Home Secretary address the House on occasion and tell us about his difficulties? If that is to be the case, there might be some satisfaction in passing the Order, but I do not accept that it will be so. I am opposed to the Order on the basis of all the information I have on the subject and I hope that my hon. Friends will vote against it.

9.58 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: The debate has roamed over a wide field. In view of the late hour, I do not think that I need detain the House for more than a few minutes before the Home Secretary is called upon to answer and the House is called upon to come to a conclusion. We have heard a great deal about the prison service, and if the debate has done nothing else I hope that it has shaken the Home Secretary out of the apparent complacency with which in his speech he approached the state of that service.
It seemed to be the masterly understatement of all time for the right hon. Gentleman to say that he was not content about everything in our prisons. I hope that the revelations made in the debate tonight, including those in the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Coble (Mr. S. Silverman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock), will by now have made the right hon. Gentleman realise that there is a great deal wrong with the service and that a great deal needs looking into. It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman has completely


failed to make out any case for the Order for the abolition of the Prison Commissioners.
It is not the fault of the Commissioners that the state of the prisons is what it is. No one has suggested in the debate that it is their fault, and the Home Secretary went out of his way to acknowledge that his is the responsibility for the state of the prisons. He argued that the Order, if passed, would make little difference and that to a large extent the same people would still be doing the same jobs. He put forward the argument that the case, if there is one, for the Order is merely one of administrative tidiness and convenience, but even that did not strike home to any great extent, because what is quite apparent is that once we destroy the independence of the Prison Commission, such as it is, the whole service will lose a very valuable safeguard.
It is no use, in a debate like this, quoting what one ex-Prison Commissioner or another has said. A variety of opinion has been expressed on both sides. Some of my right hon. and hon. Friends have changed the opinions they held a few years ago, and I have no doubt that if we had another debate in ten years' time they might change their minds again. As my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) pointed out, it is evident that the Home Office itself has shown a great deal of hesitation in bringing forward the Order. There does not seem to have been any great enthusiasm for it in the Home Office itself. I agree with the comments that have been made in the Press that this Order is really inspired, as The Times says today, in a leading article headed "Into the Maw?", by just another Home Office attempt at "administrative empire-building."
The Home Secretary has said that the present position is not constitutional. If it is not constitutional, when did it cease so to be? The present system resulted from an Act of Parliament of 1877—it has the hallmark of constitutionality about it. It has worked very well for going on for ninety years—when did it cease to be constitutional? Haw will the abolition of the Commissioners in any way affect the responsibility of the Home Secretary? The right hon. Gentleman has conceded that he is the person

who is ultimately responsible. He can be questioned at any time about the conditions of our prisons.
Here I must say that it cannot in any circumstances be the fault of the Commission that the prisons are overcrowded. If anything, that overcrowding is due to the increase in crime which must, in turn, be partly the responsibility of the Home Office and the police for their failure to deal with it. As to the conditions in the prisons, I am sure that every hon. Member will agree that the Commissioners have rendered notable service to the community and are recognised by the public as having done so. Apart from anything else, the mere existence of the Commissioners attracts a good deal of voluntary effort in prison work, and I doubt whether that voluntary effort would be so readily forthcoming if the Commission were abolished and the whole responsibility for running the prisons appeared to be a mere departmental concern and activity of the Home Secretary.
I would, therefore, say that the fact that the Prison Commission has existed for a number of years, has discharged a very valuable function, stands well in the eyes of the public, has a certain amount of statutory independence, is entitled occasionally to say things that it would not be able to say if its members were mere civil servants and had not, in addition, this statutory independence, has been a valuable public safeguard, and is recognised as such, in our social system.
It is quite needless to destroy it. That can serve no useful purpose, but can do very considerable harm both to the conditions in the prisons and in the way in which the service is regarded and administered. I should have thought that it required far more justification than we have yet had from the Home Secretary to bring forward an Order like this. It seems that there has been some mystery about why the Order is brought forward at all. The Home Secretary cannot have it both ways he cannot claim that this is a vital necessity to enable the Home Office to do its work better and, at the same time, say that it does not really make very much difference—that the people will be the same, and that there will be the same degree of integration.
If the Home Secretary says that he wants more integration in the Home Office, he must justify it. Why does he want more integration? Do we want more integration in the Home Office? Do we want more bureaucracy in the Home Office? Do not we want a measure of independence on the part of the Prison Commissioners? It may not be very substantial, but in so far as it exists I should have thought that it was valuable, and I hope that, for the reasons which my hon. Friend has given, the House will reject the Order.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) has pointed out that on this side of the House we do not regard this as a party matter. There are no party Whips on on this side of the House and I very much hope that the Government will take the view that this is a matter which transcends party politics and in which divisions have been expressed which do not divide the House on party lines. I hope that a good many hon. Members opposite will have been influenced by the speeches made by hon. Members on this side of the House and, in a free vote, will be able to reject this proposal.

10.6 p.m.

Mr. Brooke: I should like to comment on a number of points made by hon. Members on both sides of the House. In so doing I cannot presume to be successful in reconciling the views of the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) with the views of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), or the views of the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), a distinguished former Home Secretary.
Having listened to the debate, I cannot accept the statement that was made by the hon. Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) that most informed opinion is against the Government on this matter. On the whole, the Government have had the best of this debate, with help from hon. Members on the other side of the House. Although I have great respect for people who have given yeoman service in this field in the past, I doubt whether Parliament should make up its mind on the views expressed by Sir Harold Scott, who ceased to be Chairman of the Prison Commissioners 24 years ago. It may very well be that in

days gone by before the time of the right hon. Member for South Shields or mine there were deep divisions and clashes between the Prison Commissioners and the Home Office of those days. My personal experience does not go so far back as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth) or the right hon. Gentleman opposite, but the inquiries I have made have unearthed no substantial cases in recent years where there appears to have been a clash of opinion between the Prison Commissioners and the Home Office advisers to the Home Secretary of the day. In the eight months that I have been Home Secretary I have not come across a single trace of that.
I was rather troubled by the speech of the hon. Member for Liverpool Exchange (Mrs. Braddock), because she appeared to be attacking vigorously a great deal that went on in the prisons today, yet she was saying that this was entirely because the recommendations of the Prison Commissioners had not been accepted, even turned down, otherwise things would have been much better. I have investigated this and probed into it because it is something of a mystery that the idea is current that progress has been held up by Home Office resistance. I can tell the House with absolute sincerity that, at any rate in recent years, so far as I have been able to carry my investigations, there has not been the slightest sign of that kind of thing occurring.
The hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East, asked whether there was a danger that the assistant commissioners might be replaced by Home Office officials. The answer is "No". We expect the number of assistant commissioners and their method of recruitment to continue. The number of them, of course, will depend partly upon the prison population of the day. The hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) referred to proceedings in another place. My reply to him is that, so far as I can judge, the opportunities for promotion open to prison officers will be just the same as they are now. They will certainly not be worsened in any way.

Mr. Driberg: Or better?

Mr. Brooke: I cannot say whether they will be better. I think that a prison


officer who now shows himself worthy of higher responsibilities will receive them. For my part, I long for the day when there will be more men coming up through the ranks of prison officers who show themselves capable of carrying higher responsibilities.

Mr. Driberg: I entirely agree with that, but can the right hon. Gentleman explain why so much emphasis was laid in the other place on the point about better and easier promotion opportunities? The noble Lord was, after all, speaking for the Home Office. Also, can he deal with the underlying contradiction which I put to him?

Mr. Brooke: The explanation is that there were certain suggestions or allegations being made that the transfer of the Prison Commission to the Home Office would mean that senior posts now occupied by people who were promoted from within the professional prison service might in future be handed to Home Office people who had not come up that way. My noble Friend was seeking to rebut that and was perfectly fairly pointing out that, if a man coming up through the prison service showed a genius for administration, it would be quite wrong that he should be held back. We should use him to the uttermost. Nevertheless, what I hope is that every prison officer who has ability will be given the fullest opportunity to exercise that ability in the higher ranks of the prisons department of the Home Office. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. J. Wells) also asked about the assistant directors. I think that the answer I have given will cover that. The assistant commissioners will be called assistant directors in future.
My hon. Friend said that the Prison Officers' Association wanted no appointments from outside the prison service, but I think that he recognised, as the House recognises, that, at least at present, we could not fill the ranks of assistant governor and governor entirely by promotion through the prison officer ranks. I hope that the assurance I have given about the situation which I should desire to see will meet any apprehensions which are expressed anywhere.
My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone spoke about aftercare. I

agree with him and other hon. Members who said that this is a subject on which a great deal of thinking needs to be done. I am at present waiting for a report on aftercare from the Advisory Council on the Treatment of Offenders. I am told that I am likely to receive this report within the next few months. I have no idea what it will say. I hope that it will be a valuable and constructive report and that it will show the lines for the future development of our aftercare work.
My hon. Friend spoke also about the trade unions in connection with work for prisoners. At present, our difficulty is not that of getting sufficient work, though it might be if we could have all the workshops and all the prison officers we wanted as I explained in my earlier speech. We have representation of trade unions and of employers on the Advisory Council on the Employment of Prisoners which was set up by my predecessor and which produced its second report, a valuable report on vocational training in borstals, the other day. I am sure that that is the right way to handle the matter to which my hon. Friend referred and that we should get well qualified people from both sides of industry and from elsewhere to advise us through this Council.
The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Sir G. Benson) exerted great influence on the debate. He expressed clearly and decisively how his mind had changed. I believe that he is only one of those who, if they give profound thought to the matter, as I know he has done, would come to the same conclusion as the hon. Member and myself. It has been suggested that the Home Office is not really keen on this change. I am extremely keen on it. I had no doubt about bringing forward this Order. I have no doubt that 1st April, the turn of the financial year, will be the appropriate moment to make a change of this kind, and that is why the Order comes forward at this moment.
Although, as I said, the financial implications of the Order are minimal, I was asked by one hon. Gentleman whether I could estimate the savings. I cannot. If we achieve administrative savings, I should like to use them in improving the service. The Estimates for the prison service came out today,


and, while one or two hon. Members sought to hold the Treasury responsible for all that was deficient in the prison service, I point out that the buildings Vote in the Estimates published today, which, after all, is the most important for the development of prison accommodation, is up by no less than 25 per cent.
The hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Greenwood) quoted extensively from the booklet called Inside Story. I am certainly not to be taken as writing off what was said there, but it is only fair to point out that there are grave in-accuracies in that booklet. The hon. Gentleman himself spoke of women being given V.D. tests in Holloway without permission. That is completely untrue. Any woman in Holloway can refuse to undergo a V.D. test if she wishes.

Mr. Greenwood: I wonder whether the Home Secretary has studied the statement by Miss Oonagh Lahr on this subject. She states categorically that many women are not told that they can object to these tests being made.

Mr. Brooke: The hon. Member referred with approval to a former Member of the House, Mrs. Jeger, who wrote an article in the Guardian the other day. What she said was in line with what I am saying, and I must ask the hon. Gentleman and the House to accept that I have investigated this and that what I am saying is the truth.
I was also troubled to read the allegations in this report, which are quite untrue, that food which has been rejected for ordinary use is given to prisoners and that the porridge is made of pig meal No. 3. There is not the faintest trace of foundation for those allegations. The hon. Member for Rossendale quoted complaints at Stafford Prison about broken windows. It is true that it is the habit of some prisoners to break windows. It is very difficult to catch up with that, and the remedy lies in the hands of the prisoners themselves.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South spoke with knowledge from within the Home Office. He pointed out that there seemed to be little logic in the conclusion of the hon. Member for Rossendale, who had bitterly criticised what went on in prisons hut ended by saying that he wished to vote against any change

in the method of administration. I was much obliged to my hon. Friend for his speech.
I have already referred to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne. I entirely agree with the fundamental point which he made and which was repeated by the right hon. Member for South Shields. Not only should the responsibility rest with me, but it should be seen to rest with me. I am prepared to take that responsibility on my shoulders, and criticism should be directed at me. However, I would ask that if we manage to achieve improvements I should get my share of the credit for them.

Mr. S. Silverman: I agree with all of my right hon. and hon. Friends and, I think and am glad to hear from what the right hon. Gentleman has just said, with him: too. If he gets his Order, in spite of the powerful and eloquent opposition which has been uttered about it, that places upon him a much higher degree of responsibility than any Home Secretary has ever had to use the powers which are seen to belong to him.

Mr. Brooke: I do not think that it places on me any higher degree of responsibility. There has been full responsibility before now, but it has not been seen to be there. It has been possible to make speeches alleging that the Prison Commissioners are responsible for all that has been done well and the Home Office for all that has been done otherwise.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates) said that he would vote against the Order because it would hand over responsibility for the prisons to a body of civil servants in the Home Office. In fact, the same people will be administering the prison service in April as in March. Certain inconvenient barriers will be removed which at present tend against full efficiency.
The hon. Member did not, however, deal with, and hardly any Member during the debate has referred to, what I put in the forefront of the reasons for the Order: that is, that if we did not have an 86-year-old Prison Commission, we certainly should not dream of setting one up now. We cannot take the period during which a person is in custody and cut that off as though it had to be looked at quite separately from what happens before he comes there and what happens


afterwards. All these things have to be looked at together, and Parliament itself should look at them together.
I have the highest regard for what has been done by the Prison Commission throughout its 86 years of life. It has bred men of outstanding service to the country, to the prisons and to Parliament. What was right 86 years ago,

however, is not necessarily right today. We must bring these together, we must remove artificial divisions. And I agree with what has been said from both sides: that the Home Secretary should not only be fully responsible, but should be seen to be fully responsible.

Question put::—

The House divided:: Ayes 140. Noes 63.

Division No. 73.]
AYES
[10.23 p.m.


Allason, James
Gresham Cooke, R.
Pitt, Dams Edith


Batsford, Brian
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch


Benson, Sir George
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Prior, J. M. L.


Bishop, F. P.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Proudfoat, Wilfred


Black, Sir Cyril
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Pym, Francis


Bossom, Hon. Clive
Hendry, Forbes
Rawlinson, Sir Peter


Bourne-Arton, A.
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Renton, Rt. Hon. David


Box, Donald
Hocking, Philip N.
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Holland, Philip
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Hopkins, Alan
Russell, Ronald


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Buck, Antony
Hughes-Young, Michael
Sharples, Richard


Bullard, Denys
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Shepherd, William


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Skeet, T. H. H.


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Kirk, Peter
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswlck)


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Leavey, J. A.
Smithers, Peter


Chichester-Clark, R.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Speir, Rupert


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Lilley, F. J. P.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Cleaver, Leonard
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Stodart, J. A.


Cooke Robert
Litchfield, Capt. John
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Corfield, F. V.
Longbottom, Charles
Summers, Sir Spencer


Coulson, Michael
Loveys, Walter H.
Talbot, John E.


Crawley, Aldan
Lubbock, Eric
Tapsell, Peter


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Dance, James
Mac Arthur, Ian
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.
McLaren, Martin
Taylor, Sir William (Bradford, N.)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain (Enfield, W.)
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)


Doughty, Charles
McMaster, Stanley R.
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


du Cann, Edward
Macpherson. Rt. Hn. Niall (Dumfries)
Turner, Colin


Ede Rt. Hon. C.
Maddan, Martin
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Maginnis, John E.
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Elliott, R. W. (Nwcastle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Maitland, Sir John
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Emery, Peter
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Wade, Donald


Errington, Sir Eric
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Walder, David


Farr, John
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Wall, Patrick


Fisher, Nigel
Mawby, Ray
Ward, Dame Irene


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Webster, David


Foster, John
Mills, Stratton
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Freeth, Denzil
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Gammans, Lady
Nobls, Rt. Hon. Michael
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Gardner, Edward
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Woodhouse, C. M.


Gllmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Woollam, John


Gllmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)



Goodhart, Philip
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gower, Raymond
Peel, John
Mr. Finlay and Mr. J. E. B. Hill.


Grant-Ferris, R.
Percival, Ian



NOES


Ainsley, William
Dalyell, Tam
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)


Awbery, Stan (Bristol Central)
Driberg, Tom
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Fernyhough, E.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Barnett, Guy
Fletcher, Eric
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)


Bence, Cyril
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Lawson, George


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Gourlay, Harry
MacColl, James


Blackburn, F.
Grey, Charles
Mclnnes, James


Blyton, William
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hannan, William
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hayman, F. H.
Manuel, Archie


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Mendelson, J. J.


Carmichael, Neil
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Oliver, G. H.


Cronin, John
Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
Parker, John


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Hoy, James H.
Plummer, Sir Leslis




Popplewell, Ernest
Small, William
Watkins, Tudor


Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Whitlock, William


ROM, William
Sprlggs, Leslie
Wilkins, W. A.


Short, Edward
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Wilson, Rt. Hon, Harold (Huyton)


Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)



Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Walnwright, Edwin
Mr. Greenwood and




Mr. Victor Yates.

Resolved,
That the Prison Commissioners Dissolution Order 1963, a draft of which was laid before this House on 5th February, be approved.

CYPRUS (GIFT OF BOOKCASE AND GAVEL)

Dame Edith Pitt, Major Sir Frank Markham, Mr. A. G. Bottomley, arid Mr. Kenneth Robinson to have leave of absence to present, on behalf of the House, a bookcase containing Parliamentary and Constitutional reference books, together with a gavel, to the House of Representatives of Cyprus.—[Mr. Iain Macleod.]

FORTH ROAD BRIDGE (TOLLS)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. I. Fraser.]

10.32 p.m.

Mr. William Hamilton: We have today had revised estimates for the road programme, and I notice in those estimates that the second stage of the M.1 from Crick to Doncaster is to cost £36,700,000. The M.2 Medway motor road to Dover is to cost £16 million. The M.4 from London to South Wales is to cost more than £44 million, and the M.6 from Birmingham to Penrith is up £19 million to £67 million, and on none of those roads is any toll to be levied.
In Scotland, as the economic situation has steadily worsened over the last few years, the campaign against tolls on the Forth Road Bridge has steadily mounted, and many who formerly agreed with the charging of tolls are now against them. The only people who are still in favour of tolls are the Government, including the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland, and every single Tory Member for Scotland.
There are four reasons for this. The first, and I think the most important from the Opposition's point of view, is that an agreement was made in 1957, and reaffirmed in 1957, that tolls should be paid and that we should not now welsh on that agreement. Agreements and contracts are sacred, say the Government: we must not depart by one iota from them.
The second argument was reasserted by the Prime Minister last week, when he said that costly projects of this character should be financed in this way.
The third argument is that tolls will have little effect industrially, and the fourth is that if no tolls are levied—and this was one of the arguments used by the Secretary of State—less money would be available for other transport projects in Scotland.
On the first argument, I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that the agreement made in this case was made under duress. It was made, moreover, at a time when the economic prospects in

Fife, in particular, were very bright. At that time Fife was regarded as the potential workshop of Scotland. But there can be no doubt—and I do not think that the Secretary of State would challenge this—that economic circumstances have worsened drastically since that agreement was reached. I want to quote the Fife unemployment figures. I refer to Fife particularly, although both sides of the Forth and much wider regions are vitally concerned in this problem. I shall use the summer figures, and it must be remembered that the winter figures are much worse.
In June, 1957, the number of totally unemployed workers was 1,947; in June, 1962, it was 4,552—an increase of 132 per cent. For men alone the figures are much worse. In June, 1957, the total number of men unemployed was 673; in June, 1962, it was 2,300—an increase of 240 per cent. In mining, which is the principal industry in this part of Fife, the June, 1957, figure was 74, and in June, 1962, it was 518—an increase of 620 per cent. over the five years. As for juveniles, the present rate is the highest in the history of the youth employment service. In mid-January, 1962, it was 452, and in mid-January, 1963, it was 929.
I have since brought the figures up to date. I admit that the figures are winter figures, but nevertheless, from June, 1962, to February, 1963, there has been another increase in total unemployment in Fife of 4,205, or 93 per cent., during the last eight months. On this very argument, apart from the economic argument, it is clear that no agreement is sacrosanct for all time.
The Government have welshed on many agreements and pledges in their lifetime. At the Dispatch Box on 12th February, the Chancellor himself said:
We are not over-scrupulous about international obligations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th February, 1963; Vol, 671, c. 1247.]
They have welshed on their international obligations, but they must not welsh on an agreement made in 1947. They have welshed on their pledges to the electorate. They talked about "mending the hole in the purse". Indeed, full employment itself was a pledge to which the Conservative Party was committed in 1944. Does the right hon. Gentleman pretend that that pledge is being


honoured, or has been honoured, during the last several years? Welshing is the Government's favourite pastime.
As for the third argument, that costly projects should be financed by these methods, I have already quoted some extremely costly projects in the most prosperous areas of Britain which are not to be financed in this way. There are many projects in Scotland itself which are not being financed by this method. If this had been a consistent policy we could have understood it. We would not have agreed with it, but we could have understood it. In fact, there is no consistency at all.
I have quoted the M.1. We have the Hyde Park tunnel and the London flyovers, which were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Gourlay). We have the Whiteinch Tunnel, under the Clyde. There are not tolls on those projects. A toll decision is to be taken by Parliament about the Severn Bridge. It is true that toll provisions are made in respect of the Tyne Tunnel, but there will be an authorisation to permit certain traffic to pass without the payment of tolls; but there is no such provision for the Forth Bridge. The pattern is chaotic.
The Scotsman of 12th February made a list of these bridges in an article entitled "The Muddle of Tolls", in which it stated:
The Forth Road Bridge stands out as the one example where the State has provided most of the funds and yet seeks to recover them by tolls.
The Scotsman editorial of the same date quotes what Sir Frank Mears said several years ago in his survey and plan for central and south-east Scotland, when he advocated the bridge as
an essential corridor for the industrial and social development of the region.
The Scotsman also said:
That is even more obvious today than it was then. At a time when the emphasis is rightly on the need to promote economic expansion it seems indefensible to charge tolls on a pivotal section of a vital arterial road.
The Scotsman is a Tory paper and no friend of ours. Originally, it was for tolls, but having seen the economic position it has come round to the sensible view.
On the third argument, that it will have no effect industrially, there is very powerful opinion on the other side. For

example, the Scottish Council gave the Secretary of State evidence at a meeting at St. Andrew's House. The Scottish T.U.C., the Scottish National Farmers' Union and the F.B.I. are all against the proposal for tolls.
Sir George Nairn, the well-known Fife industrialist, and a Tory, has said exactly the same thing. The Fife County Council has had little evidence that industrialists are breaking their necks to get to Donibristle and one of the reasons for that is that the proposal that there should be tolls on this bridge is holding them back.
This aspect was taken up in the February issue of the magazine of the Scottish Council, which stated:
If the agreement on tolls is detrimental to the best use of the bridge for Scotland's economy, unquestioning loyalty to it serves no useful purpose for Scotland or Mr. Noble.
It continued:
No one in official quarters seems to have done all the sums to compare the costs and benefits of various possible courses of action. Mr. Murray Stewart, an economist writing in the 'New Saltire' in August, 1962, came to the conclusion that 'the imposition of tolls will reduce the potential benefit of the bridge to the road users of Scotland'.
So there are powerful allies of different political persuasions lined up against the Government. The Edinburgh Corporation is in line on this question with all the local authorities concerned, and the bodies which I have already mentioned. Most of these constituted a deputation which went to the Secretary of State on 15th February. I think that the right hon. Gentleman would agree that it was one of the most powerful and widely representative deputations ever to go to St. Andrew's House. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) and myself, and the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) were the representatives from this House.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) originally agreed to go, but subsequently refused because, as he said, rightly and legitimately from his point of view, he was opposed to a non-toll bridge, and, therefore, felt that he could not be of any assistance to the deputation. I can understand that point of view.
The hon. Member for Fife, East took exactly the same view. He is against a


free bridge. He has areas in his constituency, which have 10 per cent. unemployment, but he went because Fife City Council invited him to go. He did not speak—he graced the proceedings with his beauty, but that was all. The Secretary of State listened courteously—he is a very good listener—and then read his prepared brief like an office boy from the Treasury. The gist of his case was that if we went back on the agreement of which I have spoken the Secretary of State would find it difficult to go back to the Treasury and ask for more money for Scottish transport. I do not think I am being unfair to him in saying that.
Did the Minister of Transport take that view? Had the Secretary of State tried to go back to the Treasury? His duty is to speak for Scotland and to act for Scotland. I do not know what additional pressures he wants from Scottish representations to recognise that it is in the interests of the Scottish economy that there should be no tolls on this bridge. It was his duty to go to the Treasury and say that opinion in Scotland is overwhelmingly against the idea of tolls on this bridge.
We read in today's newspapers that a psychiatrist is giving talks to Tory M.P.s and candidates. There is work for him in the Scottish Office. If he were to get on to the Secretary of State he might convince him that it is in his political interest as well as in the economic interest of Scotland that this nonsense of tolling on this bit of trunk road—the only bit between Inverness and London —should be stopped. It is an outrage that one of the most economically distressed depressed parts of Britain should have this burden placed upou it. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider this matter.

10.48 p.m.

Mr. Harry Gourlay: Next to unemployment the question of tolls on the Forth Road Bridge is possibly the most talked of subject in Scotland. The numbers of hon. Members present in this Adjournment debate tonight is also an indication of the extreme importance we on this side of the House attach to this matter. This problem is agitating the minds of most people in Fife and also on the south side of the river.
The Prime Minister said in reply to a Question on Tuesday, 5th March:
This has been the policy since it was announced in 1955, which is that tolls should be applied to large and costly bridges and tunnels which effect particularly great savings in time and distance,"—fOFFiciAL REPORT, 5th March, 1963: Vol. 673, c. 201.]
This principle does not apply either universally or consistently in practice. For instance, the Whiteinch Tunnel, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton), is costing about £11½ million, but 75 per cent. of that sum is grant from the Exchequer. The other 25 per cent. is being met by Glasgow Corporation. There are to be no tolls in the tunnel.
The Severn Bridge will cost £16 million, but 100 per cent., about £11 million, of the cost of the bridge, is coming from the Exchequer and the £5 million for the approach roads will be met by Government grant and local authority contributions. The question of tolls there has yet to be decided by this House, but at present there is no provision made for charging tolls. This bridge is being built by the Ministry of Transport under the Special Roads Act, 1949. There is to be no board governing the project as the Ministry alone will be responsible.
The Forth Road Bridge is to cost £17·7 million. The Government grant is small, £4·6 million, and local authorities are making a grant of £½million, while the remaining £12·6 million will be loaned by the Government. Under the present regulations there will be tolls for something like thirty years. So far, I have mentioned only three projects. There is a different approach by the Government in each case. My hon. Friend mentioned the MA, the first section of which cost £22 million. The Hammersmith and Chiswick flyovers cost possibly £10 million, making a total of £32 million. The Chiswick arterial road of about 2½ miles will cost possibly £11 million. There will be no tolls on any of these facilities, though they are in an area of great prosperity.
Where is the logic behind the thinking which permits the free use of one scheme financed by public funds, but which sets a price on the use of a similar scheme whose benefits to the public are not dissimilar? The Government have stated that tolls will not prevent industry coming to Fife and other parts of Scotland,


but they cannot argue that tolls will attract industry to Fife or the east of Scotland. That is precisely what is most urgently required to meet the present economic problems in that part of Scotland. It has also been said that the Forth Road Bridge is an essential corridor for the industrial and social development of the region. This is even more obvious now than it was when it was said some years ago by Sir Frank Mears. The rundown of the coal industry and the closing of Rothes pit makes the promotion of economic expansion in Fife more necessary now than ever.
It is estimated that in the current year about £745 million will come to the Exchequer from the road fund tax and the fuel tax. This represents about 11 per cent. of the total national revenue for 1962–63. The expenditure on British roads this year is about £170 million, which leaves a balance to the Exchequer of no less than £575 million. Still the Government intend to extract more tribute money from the motorists and from industrialists who use the bridge.
It is indefensible that, while millions of pounds are spent on motorways and flyovers in the South, to which there is free access, that tolls should be imposed on a short but vital and essential part of an arterial Scottish road. Incidentally, the expenditure on the road bridge over the last few years has represented the major part of the expenditure on Scottish roads. If the Government really intend to strengthen the Scottish economy, as they are for ever proclaiming, let them as an earnest of that intention eliminate the toll charges on the bridge.

10.52 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Noble): The hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton) feels very strongly about this subject and led a delegation from his constituency and neighbouring constituencies to see me. He does an injustice to himself and his cause by saying that nobody but myself, the Prime Minister and the Tory Members of Parliament are in favour of keeping tolls on the bridge. If he gets around Scotland as much as I do, he will find that a great many other people share my view.
May I correct the statement which the hon. Member made about our meeting at Edinburgh? He said that all that I did was to read my prepared brief. [-le cannot have been watching. It is perfectly true that I read out a specific statement by the Minister of Transport giving the exact words in which he proclaimed the Government's policy some years ago, but, apart from that, I never looked at any papers at all.
It is fair to explain to the House, as one should do, the background to this matter. The hon. Member mentioned it. He mentioned that the original Forth Road Bridge Order, 1947, when the Labour Party was in power, was designed to provide for the recovery from tolls of the greater part of the contribution which the local authorities concerned were to make to the cost of the bridge. At this time the cost was estimated at a mere £6½2 million, but by the time it became practicable to start the work it was clear that the cost would be much more.
In 1956 and 1957 negotiations took place between my Department and the Joint Board to settle a revised method of finance which would provide for the expenditure, which had then risen to about £15½ million. It was agreed that the outright contributions to be made in terms of the 1947 Order should remain unchanged—a little over £4½ million by the Government and £½ million by the local authorites. The remainder of the cost it was agreed, should be advanced by way of loan by the Government and be recovered by tolls.
This was agreed with the local authorities concerned and the Joint Board then promoted a Provisional Order which became the Forth Bridge Order, 1958. This Order gave statutory force to the agreement reached with the local authorities and there is no doubt that the joint decision at that moment to go ahead with these financial arrangements resulted in a decision to build the bridge a great deal earlier than would have been possible in any other way.
This is the background. It was unchanged until about a year ago when a considerable campaign started, aimed at the reversal of the decision that the bridge should be toll financed. The arguments put forward to me both tonight


and when I met the deputation have fallen broadly into three classes. The first is that economic conditions have changed, particularly in Fife, and this I entirely accept. It also is represented that the prospect of industrial development in Fife will be adversely affected by tolls on the bridge and that they therefore should be abandoned.
The second argument is that the Government's toll policy is being applied inconsistently. The hon. Member for Fife, West said that the local authorities had accepted this under duress in 1956–57. This is not the case. At a meeting which I had with representatives of all the local authorities concerned—the meeting which the hon. Member attended—only one representative said that he had objected in principle to tolls in 1957 and he added that he had been overruled by his local authority colleagues. I cannot honestly square this with what the hon. Member said. Was that negotiation under duress?
I will deal with the three arguments separately. Fears have been expressed about the effect of tolls on industry—that by increasing overheads on goods moved in both directions across the bridge an intolerable burden will be placed on the areas most closely concerned. The Government do not share this view. We think that it is based on an over-pessimistic assessment of the attraction to traffic which the new bridge will undoubtedly provide. The Toot-hill Committee and the Scottish Council, which have been brought into this argument, took a great deal of trouble to draw attention to the generally low proportion of industrial costs attributable to transport.
Although I would agree that no one likes tolls, the movement of materials and goods between Fife and Edinburgh via the bridge will certainly be very much more convenient than at present, and even with tolls will be cheaper than the existing ferry or the detour via Kincardine. Our opinion, based on experience of similar projects elsewhere, is that it will be the convenience of the bridge that will make it a telling factor in new developments in Fife.
I entirely rebut the extreme view expressed to me by the convener of Fife

County Council that a toll bridge would be a curse to Scotland. I do not believe that this view is shared by any other areas in Scotland, such as Dundee, where a toll bridge is about to be built, or by Renfrew and Dunbarton where a toll bridge at the Erskine ferry is at least a possibility. We do not believe that the abandonment of tolls at this stage would be the right method of tackling the industrial problems of Fife. We do not believe that in any case it would be effective. There are other ways by which we can deal with trade and industry in the area which will be served by the Forth Bridge and we will do everything possible to deal with them.

Mr. James H. Hoy: We had representations from the Scottish Council for Development and Industry which produced three cases where firms had refused to come because of the imposition of tolls. Would the right hon. Gentleman like to deal with that point?

Mr. Noble: I think that they were perfectly correct in saying so. On the other hand, there have been indications since our meeting that one or two firms will move to Fife, and the Civil Lord of the Admiralty gave us a little encouragement for Rosyth in yesterday's debate. In addition, very substantial expenditure is being incurred on new developments in places like Glenrothes.
I have explained that the financial arrangements under which the scheme started, and is now well on the way to completion, were entered into after negotiation by the Joint Board, on which the local authorities principally concerned are all represented. It is my view that this bargain between Scotland and the United Kingdom taxpayer should be honoured, and that both the Forth Valley and Scotland as a whole will benefit more in the long run if they accept it.
The second argument is that the Government's policy about tolls has been inconsistent. I cannot accept that. The policy is that tolls are an appropriate method of financing expensive bridge and tunnel schemes. This policy was announced in February, 1955 by the then Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation, and, for the benefit of the hon. Gentleman, this was the one thing I did read


out of my brief. I has been followed consistently since that date—[An HON. MEMBER: "Whiteinch?"]—The White-inch Tunnel project was approved in 1954, which was before the date in question.
The imposition of tolls is taking place at the new bridges over the Forth, the Severn, the Tamar and the Tay, and at the Dartford and Tyne Tunnels. If one considers how widely these schemes are spread in Britain, it seems to me a little difficult to say that we are discriminating harshly against the Forth Road bridge. I would also remind the House that the purpose of tolls on the Forth bridge, after providing sufficient income to pay for running and maintaining it, and to build up a reserve fund intended to provide for its operation and maintenance after tolls have come to an end, is to service the loan. While I cannot anticipate what schedule of toll charges the Joint Board will propose to me, I shall be giving away no secrets in saying that the use of the bridge will have to fall

far below expectations for the tolls not to have done their job within thirty years of the opening of the bridge.
Finally, there is the 'objection to tolls generally. The Government's principle in broad outline is that the Queen's highway should be free, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has spoken at other times in the House on the subject of by-passing or buying up the old privately-owned toll bridges. But this is quite a different matter from modern bridges or tunnels owned by local authorities and built by the latest engineering techniques at great cost to effect specific savings in time and distance. These projects, in fact, create new facilities—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at two minutes past Eleven o'clock.